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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections of the claims (Secs. I. and II. pages 12- 18) have been fully considered but are moot in light of the newly presented grounds of rejection, see the corresponding 103 rejections of the claims below.
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 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourada et al. (US 20190322506 A1) in view of Osswald (US-20090038186-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 21 Ourada teaches a tracked vehicle (Fig. 1: Vehicle 10, Abstract) defining a width direction (the direction spanning left and right in Fig. 9), the vehicle comprising:
a load assembly (Fig. 1: Front 50 and Rear 40 Bodies) comprising an underbody (Fig. 1: Front 150 and Rear 140 Brackets);
at least two caterpillar assemblies (Fig. 1: Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies);
at least two drive tracks movably mounted to the load assembly to execute a movement along an orbit of the respective drive track for a travel of the tracked vehicle along a running direction, each of the at least two drive tracks formed at a respective one of the caterpillar assemblies (60 & 70) and defining a respective movement direction (Fig. 1: Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies are depicted as comprising tracks which, as is well known and common in the art, move along an outer orbit of their respective track assemblies in order to affect a travelling movement on the vehicle);
tilting means for tilting the caterpillar assemblies (60 & 70) about a respective inclination axis extending substantially perpendicular to the movement direction of the respective drive track (Figs. 21 & 22 and Para. [0115] teach the Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies tilting, therein called “articulating”, about an axis that is perpendicular to the movement direction of the tracks, the axes being aligned with the Respective Axle Housings 160 & 165); and
shifting means for shifting the caterpillar assemblies along the respective inclination axis between a retracted position (Fig. 27) and an extended position (Fig. 28 shows a pair of Track Assemblies 60 in an extended position along the inclination axis as opposed to the retracted position shown in Fig. 27; as discussed in Paras. [0119]- [0121]), wherein:
in the retracted position, the caterpillar assemblies (60) are located below the underbody (50) of the load assembly (Fig. 27 teaches the Track Assemblies 60 as being below the bottom plane of Body 50); and
in the extended position, the caterpillar assemblies (60) overhang the load assembly (50) on opposite sides in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 28 teaches the Track Assemblies 60 as being outboard of the outer planes of Body 50 and can be said to overhang it),
wherein the tracked vehicle (10) defines a vehicle longitudinal direction (left to right, Fig. 8), and wherein the tracked vehicle (10) further comprises:
a clamping device (Hydraulic Cylinder 180, Fig. 8) adapted to shift the at least two caterpillar assemblies (60 & 70) along respective clamping axes extending substantially in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Comparing Figs. 23 & 24 the Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies are shown to move towards each other in a direction substantially longitudinal to the vehicle which could clamp an object in between them).
Ourada as modified above does not teach that two or more of the caterpillar assemblies that are side by side move linearly along the clamping axis.
Osswald teaches, in another tracked vehicle (the embodiment of Fig. 70 and Para. [0208], sharing many of the features of the preceding embodiments), a clamping device (Telescoping Device 50, Fig. 4) adapted to shift at two least caterpillar assemblies (Rubber Track Members 675, Fig. 70) linearly towards and away from each other along respective clamping axes extending substantially in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Rubber Track Members 675/ Front 20 and Rear 42 Wheels moving linearly towards and away from each other as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 and discussed in Para. [0104]).
Osswald further teaches that an extendable framework and adjustable wheelbase, which are provided by Telescoping Device 50, advantageously enhance versatility, safety, and effectiveness as well as providing a variable weight distribution system which can be employed to compensate for different weights lifted by the vehicle (Para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ourada and Osswald in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ourada’s tracked vehicle to include the clamping mechanism as suggested by Osswald. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantages taught by Osswald and discussed above that would beneficially make a more versatile, safe, and effective vehicle.
Regarding Claim 22 Ourada further teaches steering means for changing the running direction of the tracked vehicle (Fig. 23 and Paras. [0011] & [0118] teach the Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies as articulating in a manner that would affect a steering means).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourada and Osswald in view of Bares et al. (US 20050011696 A1)
Regarding claim 23 Ourada teaches steering means for changing the running direction of the tracked vehicle (Fig. 23 and Paras. [0011] & [0118] teach the Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies as articulating in a manner that would affect a steering means).
Ourada does not teach the steering means being achieved by different rotation speeds or directions of the drive tracks.
Bares teaches, in another tracked vehicle (Abstract; Skid Steer Loader 10), that steering means can be adapted to change the running direction of a tracked vehicle (10) by at least one of:
different rotation speeds of the drive tracks (Paras. [0002]- [0003] teach that tracked vehicles can effect steering by differential movement between the ground engaging and driving tracks on opposite sides of the vehicle); and
different rotation directions of the drive tracks (Paras. [0002]- [0003] teach that tracks may be moved forward or backward).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tracked vehicle of Ourada to comprise the steering arrangement taught by Bares in order to form a more cost-effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Ourada and Bares comes from knowledge well known in the art that tracked vehicles can be cost-effectively steered by providing means for rotating the tracks at different speeds and/ or directions, as opposed to providing means to rotate the track assemblies about a steering axis which is more complex and therefore more expensive. Therefore doing so would make a more cost-effective system.
Claim(s) 24-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourada and Osswald in view of Colvard (US 20030072613 A1).
Regarding Claim 24 Ourada further teaches that the caterpillar assemblies (60) have a steering axis (Fig. 22 and Para. [0118] Superstructure Hinge Bracket 190); and
the steering means is adapted to change the running direction of the tracked vehicle by rotating the caterpillar assemblies (60) about the steering axis (190) (Fig. 23 and Paras. [0011] & [0118] teach the Front 60 and Rear 70 Track Assemblies as articulating in a manner about a steering axis 190 that would affect a steering means).
Ourada does not teach that there are multiple steering axes, each associated with a respective caterpillar assembly.
Colvard teaches in another tracked vehicle (Fig. 1 and Para. [0009] with multiple caterpillar assemblies, therein called Crawler Assemblies 15) a steering axis (Fig. 2A: A) and associated steering mechanism (17) for each respective caterpillar assembly (15) (Fig. 1 and Para. [0021] teach a plurality of Crawler Assemblies 15 and respective Steering Mechanisms 17).
Colvard further teaches that a plurality of caterpillar assemblies which are each supported by a steering mechanism advantageously facilitates steerable driving of a machine over substantially any ground surface, and further that conventional paving equipment is commonly supported in this way [Para. 0003].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tracked vehicle of Ourada to comprise the plurality of steering mechanisms taught by Colvard in order to form a vehicle capable of navigating more challenging surfaces.
Motivation to combine said elements of Ourada and Colvard comes from the teachings of Colvard as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a vehicle capable of navigating more challenging surfaces.
Regarding Claim 25 Ourada as modified above to have a plurality of steering axes, one for each caterpillar assembly, further teaches that the caterpillar assemblies (60) each have a respective front end portion (upper-left in Fig. 27) and a rear end portion (lower-right in Fig. 27).
Ourada as modified above does not teach that the steering axes pierce the respective caterpillar assemblies in one of either the front or the rear end portions when they are in the retracted position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the steering mechanisms such that the steering axes pierced their respective caterpillar assemblies, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 27 Ourada, as modified above to have a plurality of steering axes, one for each caterpillar assembly, teaches that the there is a respective steering axis (Vertical Steering Axis A of Colvard) and a respective inclination axis (aligned with the Respective Axle Housings 160 & 165 of Ourada) for each of the caterpillar assemblies (60 of Ourada 15 of Colvard).
Ourada as modified above does not teach that the steering axes pierce their respective inclination axis.
Colvard teaches the steering axes (A) piercing their respective inclination axis (Fig. 2A and Para. [0021] teach a Clevis Bracket 36 which is substantially aligned with the Steering Mechanism 17 such that the axis formed by the pivot in the Clevis Bracket 36 can be said to intersect with the Vertical Steering Axis A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the steering and inclination mechanisms of Ourada such that the steering axes pierced their respective caterpillar assemblies as taught in Colvard, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourada and Osswald in view of WANG (CN104709369A)
Regarding Claim 26 Ourada further teaches that the caterpillar assemblies (60) each have a respective front end portion (upper-left in Fig. 27) and a rear end portion (lower-right in Fig. 27); and
the caterpillar (60 & 70) assemblies are pierced by their respective inclination axis (Figs. 21, 22, & 27 and Para. [0115] teach the Track Assemblies 60 articulating about respective Axles 160, 165, 170 which form an axis that pierces the Track Assemblies 60).
Ourada does not teach the inclination axes piercing the front or the back of the caterpillar assemblies.
WANG teaches, in another tracked vehicle (Abstract and Fig. 11) comprising inclining caterpillar assemblies (1) having front (F) and rear (R) portions, that the caterpillar assemblies (1) are pierced by their respective inclination axes (IA) in one of the front end portion or the rear end portion (Fig. 11 teaches caterpillar assemblies 1 articulating about axes IA that pierce the front F of two of the caterpillar assemblies 1 and the rear R of the other two).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WANG Fig. 11, Annotated
WANG further teaches that the arrangement, therein referred to as “underactuation technology”, advantageously enhances the vehicle’s ability to adapt to complicated terrain environments (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tracked vehicle of Ourada such that the inclination axes pierced their respective caterpillar assemblies as taught by WANG in order to form a vehicle advantageously capable of navigating complicated terrain environments.
Motivation to combine said elements of Ourada and WANG comes from the teachings of WANG as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a vehicle capable of navigating complicated terrain environments.
Claim(s) 21, 29-30, 32-36 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskar (US 20190077636 A1) in view of BOECKER (DE 3939762 A1), TOMITA (JP 2001019399 A) and Lert (US 20160355337 A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 29, Bhaskar teaches a running rail configuration (Elevator System 20), comprising:
at least two running rails (Fig. 1: Vertical Rails 26A & B) disposed substantially parallel to one another (depicted as such in Fig. 1), each of the running rails (26A & B) comprising a structure with projections (P) and depressions(D), the structure adapted to engage in at least one of a form-fitting manner and a force-fitting manner with the at least {two wheels} (Wheels 42 A-D) of a vehicle (24) (Fig. 2A, Annotated depicts the Vertical Rails 26A & B fitting the form of the Wheels 42 A-D, therefore the structure can be said to be form fitting; Para. [0044] teaches a Tensioning Device 56 providing a normal force between the Vertical Rails 26A & B and the Wheels 42 A-D and therefore the structure can also be said to be force fitting),
wherein the running rail arrangement further comprises:
a lower runway (Fig. 1: Rails 104A & B);
a first upper runway (Fig. 1: Rails 106A & B);
a surrounding support structure (Para. [0051] teaches a surrounding support structure);
at least one running module (Fig. 1 and Para. [0036]- [0037] teach Hoistways 22A-E) comprising:
the at least two running rails (Fig. 1: Vertical Rails 26A & B) each having an upper end portion (being disposed vertically, their upper end portions Vertical Rails 26A & B have upper end portions toward the top of Fig. 1) and adapted to be attached to the surrounding support structure such that they extend parallel to one another (depicted as parallel in Fig. 1) and vertically from a lower runway (104A & B) to a first upper runway (106A & B), the first upper runway being located at a predetermined height relative to the lower runway (Fig. 1 teaches the Hoistways 22A-E, which are supported by the support structure as taught by Para. [0051], extending from the lower Rails 104A & B to the upper Rails 106A & B, each of the Rails 104A & B and 106A & B being at a fixed and therefore predetermined height relative to one another.), and the at least two running rails (26A & B) being horizontally spaced from each other by a distance substantially equal to a distance of the {wheel} assemblies (Wheels 42 A-D) in the extended position in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 2A, Annotated, teaches the Vertical Rails 26A & B being spaced apart by the same distance as the Wheels 42A-D in the width direction W of the Car 24, where the Wheels 42A-D can be said to be in an extended position because they overhang the body of the Car 24 in the width direction W).
PNG
media_image2.png
575
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bhaskar Fig. 2A, Annotated
Bhaskar further teaches a vehicle (Car 24) comprising a load assembly (the body of Car 24) comprising an underbody (Cart 100) and at least two {wheel} assemblies (Wheels 42 A-D), wherein the vehicle (24) defines a vehicle longitudinal direction (L, Fig. 2A Annotated) and the at least two {wheel} assemblies (42 A-D) are arranged side by side in the vehicle width direction (W, Fig. 2A Annotated), and wherein the vehicle (24) further comprises a clamping device (Tensioning Device 56) adapted to shift the at least two {wheel} assemblies (Wheels 42C & 42D) linearly towards and away from each other along respective clamping axes extending substantially in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Fig. 2A, Annotated and Para. [0044] teach a Tensioning Device 56, serving as a clamping means, two Wheels 42C & 42D, which serve the same essential function of providing driving force to the vehicle, therein called Car 24, as the caterpillar assemblies, which are arranged along the width W of the Car 24, and shift along a linear longitudinal direction L of the Car 24, Para. [0044] further teaches that Tensioning Device 56 may be a controllable actuator, which is understood to be capable of shifting Wheels 42C & 42D both towards and away from each other).
Bhaskar does not teach that the vehicle that engages with the rails also comprises the caterpillar assemblies as claimed in claim 21.
BOECKER teaches, in another rail climbing device for carrying cargo (Abstract and Para. [0001]), a vehicle for carrying loads (Load-carrying Device 9) comprising {a} caterpillar assembly (Fig. 8 and Para. [21] teach a caterpillar device made up of Drive Roller 13, Toothed Belt 11 and Deflection Roller 14); and
{a} drive track (11) movably mounted to the load assembly (9) to execute a movement along an orbit of the drive track for a travel of the tracked vehicle along a running direction, {the} drive track formed at {the} caterpillar assembly and defining a respective movement direction (Fig. 8 and Para. [21] teach a Toothed Belt 11 executing an orbital movement around the caterpillar device made up of Drive Roller 13 and Deflection Roller 14 along the running direction of the vehicle).
BOECKER further teaches that in contrast to other forms of rail engaging devices common to the art, caterpillar assemblies advantageously can transport higher loads with weaker and lighter components (Paras. [0002]- [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar to comprise the caterpillar assembly of BOECKER in order to form a more cost-effective and lighter system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar with the caterpillar assembly of BOECKER comes from the teachings of BOECKER, a device of analogous art to both the claimed invention and the running rail configuration of Bhaskar, as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a more cost-effective and lighter system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach that the vehicle that engages with the rails also comprises the tilting means as claimed in claim 21.
TOMITA teaches, in another rail climbing device for carrying cargo (Abstract), tilting means (Tilt Drive Mechanism 67) for tilting {a wheeled support} assembly (Trolley 53) about a respective inclination axis (the axis extending into the page made by Rotary Bearing Portion 63) extending substantially perpendicular to the movement direction of the respective drive track (Figs. 6 & 13 and Paras. [0046-0048]: describe a Tilt Drive Mechanism 67 that tilts a Trolley 53 with respect to a Loading Chassis 64 about an axis defined by the Rotary Bearing Portion 63 such that it extends into the page of each figure and is perpendicular to the movement direction of a drive track, therein called: Platform Rail 21).
TOMITA further teaches that the tilting means can be operated to control the tilt angle of the load as it traverses horizontal landings as well as inclined railways (Paras. [0059]- [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the tilting means of TOMITA in order to form a more useful system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the tilting means of TOMITA comes from the teachings of TOMITA, a device of analogous art to both the claimed invention and the running rail configuration of Bhaskar, as discussed above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the benefit of the tilting means taught by TOMITA as advantageously allowing for a load carrying device to travel on both a horizontal landing and an inclined railway while holding the load it carries level. Therefore doing so would make a more useful system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach that the vehicle that engages with the rails also comprises the shifting means as claimed in claim 21.
Lert teaches, in another rail climbing device for carrying cargo (Abstract), a vehicle for carrying loads (Vehicle 840) comprising shifting means for shifting {wheels} (Wheels 842) along {an axis perpendicular to the vehicle running direction} between a retracted position and an extended position (Figs. 31D & 32 and Paras. [0242]- [0243] teach a shifting means for shifting Wheels 842 and Sprockets 844 between a retracted and an extended position along the axis that they turn upon, such that it can be said that the axis is perpendicular to the running direction of the vehicle), wherein:
in the retracted position, the {wheels} (Wheels 842) are located below the underbody of the load assembly (Fig. 39B and Para. [0238] teaches the Wheels 842, indicated in Fig. 31D, as being located in the lower portion of the Vehicle such that they can said to be below the body of the Vehicle 840); and
in the extended position, the {wheels} (Wheels 842) overhang the load assembly (840) on opposite sides in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 39C shows the Wheels 842 in an extended position such that it can be said that they overhang the body of the Vehicle 840 in a width direction which is parallel to the axes of the Wheels 842).
Lert further teaches the shifting means as allowing the vehicle (840) to selectively engage an inclined “ramp” rail or a horizontal “outer horizontal track” by shifting the wheels (842 & 844) between the retracted and the extended positions, which advantageously achieves a completely passive track and ramp system with no switches or moving parts in the structure (Figs. 39A-E and Para. 238).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the shifting means of Lert in order to form a more cost-effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the shifting means of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert, a device of analogous art to both the claimed invention and the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above, as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a more cost-effective system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach the running module being arranged obliquely.
TOMITA teaches two running rails (Platform Rails 21) that extend parallel to one another (Figs. 2 & 3) and obliquely from a lower runway to a first upper runway (Figs. 1 & 2 and Para. [0062] teach Platform Rails extending parallel to each other and obliquely from one lower stair landing to another upper stair landing).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the oblique running module of TOMITA in order to form a more cost-effective system.
A person of reasonable skill in the art would recognize, when viewing the disclosure of TOMITA, the benefit of having a running rail system that could be arranged obliquely so that it could operate along a preexisting structure such as the stairs that the arrangement of TOMITA describes, because it would save the expense of building a new structure. Therefore they would be motivated to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the oblique running module of TOMITA in order to make a more cost-effective system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach the arc-shaped transition elements at the upper end of the running rails.
TOMITA teaches at least two arc-shaped transition elements (Slope Sections 34) each disposed at the upper end portion of a respective one of the at least two running rails (21) and being adapted to connect the respective running rail to the first upper runway (Figs. 1 & 3 and Para. [0058] teach Slope Sections 34, depicted as being arc-shaped in Fig. 1, being attached to the upper end of the pair of Platform Rails 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the arc-shaped transition elements of TOMITA in order to form a smoother running system.
A person of reasonable skill in the art would recognize, when viewing the disclosure of TOMITA, the benefit of having arc-shaped transition elements as described by TOMITA, because they would recognize that such a shape would make for a smoother change between the running rail and the landing. Therefore they would be motivated to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the oblique running module of TOMITA in order to make a smoother running system.
Regarding Claim 21, note that, as a result of the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claim 29 above, all of the limitations of Claim 21 are also necessarily obvious over the prior art, therefore Claim 21 is itself unpatentable over Bhaskar in view of Boecker, Tomita, and Lert as detailed above.
Regarding Claim 30 Bhaskar further teaches that the structure is provided in the form of a structured surface of a solid running rail (Fig. 2A, Annotated and Para. [0037] teach Vertical Rails 26A & B having structural surface features P and D, as well as being in the form of an I-Beam which is a form of solid structural rail that is well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 32 Bhaskar, as modified above (i.e. comprising the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER and the tilting means about inclination axes of TOMITA), teaches a running rail configuration (Elevator System 20).
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach a pair of oblique running modules that are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction.
Lert teaches a vehicle (840) that defines a longitudinal direction (left and right along the direction of Track 1054 in Fig. 39A) and which further comprises first and second oblique running modules (Figs. 37A-D & 39A-E and Paras. [0235]- [0238] teach two pairs of Diagonal Ramp Tracks 992 forming a Ramp Module 990):
disposed relative to one another such that they each extend obliquely from the lower runway (bottom most Track 1054 in Fig. 39A) to the first upper runway (upper most Track 1054 in Fig. 39A), the running rails (992) of the first and second oblique running modules being substantially parallel to one another (Figs. 37A-D & 39A-E and Paras. [0235]- [0238] teach the Diagonal Ramp Tracks 992 of Ramp Module 990 as extending from the bottom most Track 1054 to upper most Track 1054 in Fig. 39A at an oblique angle to the Tracks 1054 and being parallel to each other); and
horizontally spaced by a distance substantially equal to a distance of the {axes of the wheel assemblies} (842) in a straight running position in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Figs. 37A-D & 39A-E and Paras. [0235]- [0238] teach the Diagonal Ramp Tracks 992 being spaced apart substantially equal to the spacing of the axes of the Wheels 842 in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle 840).
Lert further teaches that having four tracks arranged as disclosed therein advantageously enables the vehicle to remain horizontal when ascending or descending the diagonal ramp (Para. [0236]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the first and second oblique running modules of Lert in order to form a more effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the first and second oblique running modules of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a more effective system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach that the spacing of the running modules is based on an inclination axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the inclination axes of Bhaskar as modified by TOMITA to align with the axes of the wheels of Lert such that the spacing of the running modules was equal to the distance of the inclination axes, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 33 Bhaskar, as modified above to comprise the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER, teaches a running rail configuration (Elevator System 20).
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach a second upper runway.
Lert teaches a second upper runway (third from the bottom-most Track 1054 in Fig. 39A- hereafter 1054-2) disposed above the first upper runway (second from the bottom-most Track 1054 in Fig. 39A- hereafter 1054-1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the second upper runway as taught by Lert in order to form a more useful system.
A person of reasonable skill in the art with the teachings of Lert in front of them would recognize that a running rail system with a plurality of upper runways would have an increased utility over a system with only one upper runway because it would advantageously allow the vehicle a wider degree of mobility. Therefore they would be motivated to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the second upper runway of Lert in order to make a more useful system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach a plurality of oblique running modules.
Lert teaches that the at least one oblique running module (Ramp 1052) comprises a plurality of oblique running modules operable to connect the lower runway (bottom-most Track 1054 in Fig. 39A- hereafter 1054-0) to the first upper runway (1054-1) and the first upper runway (1054-1) to the second upper runway (1054-2), the oblique running modules being disposed above each other such that the running rails are aligned in pairs (Figs. 39A & B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the plurality of oblique running modules of Lert in order to form a more effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the plurality of oblique running modules of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 32 above. Therefore doing so would make a more effective system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach passage openings between the oblique running modules.
Lert teaches passage openings defined between the oblique running modules (1052) disposed above one another (Figs. 39A-E and Para. [0238] teach “inner horizontal tracks” and “outer horizontal tracks” as part of the Tracks 1054 arranged above each other so that there are openings in the Tracks 1054 along the length of the Ramp 1052).
Lert further teaches that the inner and outer horizontal track arrangement, which comprises openings for the vehicle to move through while ascending the ramps, advantageously allows for a reduction in storage footprint because the vehicle can shift into a narrower configuration when not traversing the portion of the track near the ramp (Para. [0238]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the passage openings of Lert in order to form a more compact system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the passage openings of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a more compact system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach oblique and horizontal running positions.
Lert teaches that the passage openings are dimensioned such that the {wheel} assemblies (842) are operable to switch between an oblique running position and a horizontal running position for running into or out of the running rail arrangement (Figs. 39A-E and Para. [0238] teach the wheels having a climbing mode position for running along the Ramp 1052, comparable to an oblique running position, and a mode for running along the horizontal Track 1054, comparable to a horizontal running position).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the switchable running positions of Lert in order to form a more effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the switchable running positions of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert regarding a shifting means as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 29 above. Therefore doing so would make a more effective system.
Bhaskar as modified above does not teach the caterpillar assemblies maintaining contact with at least one oblique running module when crossing the passage openings.
Lert teaches that the {wheel} assemblies (842) in the oblique running position are continuously in contact to at least one oblique running module (1052) when crossing the passage openings (Fig. 39C shows a Vehicle 1056 crossing a passage opening such that the wheel that contacts the Ramp 1052 is in continuous contact with the Ramp 1052 while making the crossing).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above such that wheels or caterpillar assemblies maintain contact with at least one oblique running module when crossing the passage openings as taught by Lert in order to form a more reliable system.
A person of reasonable skill in the art would recognize, when viewing the disclosure of Lert, the benefit of having a running rail system in which the wheels or caterpillar assemblies maintain contact with at least one oblique running module when crossing the passage openings because they would recognize the importance of the vehicle maintaining traction on the running rail. Therefore they would be motivated to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with said elements of Lert in order to make a more reliable system.
Regarding Claim 34, Bhaskar teaches a running rail configuration (Fig. 1: Elevator System 20 with Rails 26A & B, 104A & B and 106A & B), comprising:
a surrounding support structure (Para. [0051] teaches walls and beams for structural support of the rails);
a lower runway (Fig. 1: Rails 104A & B);
a first upper runway (Fig. 1: Rails 106A & B);
at least two running rails (Fig. 1: Vertical Rails 26A & B) having upper end portions (being disposed vertically, their upper end portions Vertical Rails 26A & B have upper end portions toward the top of Fig. 1) and being disposed substantially parallel to one another (depicted as such in Fig. 1), each of the running rails (26A & B) comprising a structure with projections (P) and depressions(D) (Fig. 2A, Annotated, teaches projections P and Depressions D, where the Depressions D are made a plurality on each rail by their existence on either side of each rail), the structure adapted to engage in at least one of a form-fitting manner {or} a force-fitting manner with the at least two {wheels} (Wheels 42 A-D) of the {vehicle} (Fig. 2A depicts the Vertical Rails 26A & B as fitting the form of the Wheels 42 A-D, therefore the structure can be said to be form fitting; Para. [0044] teaches a Tensioning Device 56 providing a normal force between the Vertical Rails 26A & B and the Wheels 42 A-D and therefore the structure can be said to be force fitting); and
at least one vertical running module comprising (Fig. 1 and Para. [0036]- [0037] teach Hoistways 22A-E):
{a pair} of running rails (Fig. 1 and Para. [0036]- [0037] teach the Hoistways 22A-E with Vertical Rails 26A & B):
disposed parallel to one another and configured to engage in one of a form-fitting manner {or} a force-fitting manner with the {wheels} (Wheels 42 A-D) of the {vehicle} (taught by Figs. 1 & 2A and Para. [0044] as discussed above); and
being attached to the surrounding support structure such that they extend vertically from the lower runway (104A & B) to the first upper runway (106A & B), the first upper runway being located at a predetermined height relative to the lower runway (Fig. 1 teaches the Hoistways 22A-E, which are supported by the support structure as taught by Para. [0051], extending from the lower Rails 104A & B to the upper Rails 106A & B, each of the Rails 104A & B and 106A & B being at a fixed and therefore predetermined height relative to one another.);
at least two transition elements configured to be {disposed} on the first upper runway (106A & B) at the predetermined height adjacent to the upper end portions of the running rails such that the structure of each of the at least two transition elements is {adjacent} a structure of a corresponding running rail (Fig. 1 and Para. [0047] teach a plurality of Shuttles 102 for transitioning Cars 24 between the Vertical Rails 26A & B and the upper Rails 106A & B);
the running rails (26A & B) {of a pair of running rails} are spaced from each other by a distance substantially equal to a distance of the {wheel} assemblies in an extended position in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 2A, Annotated, teaches the Vertical Rails 26A & B being space apart by the same distance as the Wheels 42A-D in the width direction W of the Car 24, where the Wheels 42A-D can be said to be in an extended position because they overhang the body of the Car 24 in the width direction W).
Bhaskar further teaches the vehicle of claim 21 with clamping means as discussed above in the 103 rejections of claims 21 and 29.
Bhaskar does not teach that the vehicle that engages with the rails also comprises the caterpillar assemblies, the tilting means, and the shifting means as claimed in claim 21.
BOECKER, TOMITA and Lert teach the caterpillar assemblies, the tilting means, and the shifting means as claimed in claim 21. See the 103 rejection of claim 29 above for these teachings and the motivations to combine them with the running rail configuration of Bhaskar.
Bhaskar does not teach that the running rails (26A & B) are two pair of rails that are spaced apart in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (L).
Lert teaches a running rail configuration (1110) which further comprises first and second vertical running modules (Figs. 41A & B, & 43A & B and Paras. [0232]- [0234] teach two pairs of Verticals 1174 forming a Vertical Ramp 1110),
horizontally spaced by a distance substantially equal to a distance of the {axes of the wheel assemblies} (842) in a straight running position in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Figs. 41A&B and Paras. [0232]- [0234] teach the Vertical Ramp Tracks 992 being spaced apart substantially equal to the spacing of the axes of the Wheels 842 in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle 1140).
Lert further teaches that having four tracks arranged as disclosed therein advantageously enables the vehicle to remain horizontal when ascending or descending the ramp (Para. [0236]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the first and second vertical running modules of Lert in order to form a more effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with the first and second vertical running modules of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert as discussed above. Therefore doing so would make a more effective system.
Bhaskar does not teach that the transition elements are arranged obliquely on the first upper runway or such that they are opposite a corresponding running rail.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the transition elements such that they are obliquely disposed on the first upper runway and opposite a corresponding running rail, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 35 Bhaskar, as modified above to comprise the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER, teaches that the structure is disposed on each of the at least two running rails (26A & B) such that, when the caterpillar assemblies are shifted in a direction of the structure (longitudinal direction L in Fig. 2A, Annotated) in a vertical running position (Fig. 2A teaches the Wheels 42C & 42D as disposed such that they can be said to be in a vertical running position as they are arranged to run vertically along the Vertical Rails 26A & B) by the clamping means (Tensioning Device 56), one of a clamping force and a tension force is generated between the caterpillar assemblies and the running rails in a horizontal direction (Fig. 2A, Annotated and Para. [0044] teach a Tensioning Device 56 which is arranged to move along the longitudinal direction L of the Car 24, and shifting along a longitudinal direction L of the Car 24 to provide a clamping force between the Wheels 42A-D and the Vertical Rails 26A & B).
Regarding Claim 36 Bhaskar, as modified above to comprise the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER and the shifting means of Lert, teaches a running rail configuration (Elevator System 20).
Bhaskar does not teach a second upper runway or vertical running modules with passage openings.
Lert teaches a second upper runway (UR2 in Fig. 41B, Annotated) disposed above the first upper runway (UR1 in Fig. 41B, Annotated) such that their respective running rails are aligned in pairs with one another (Fig. 41B, Annotated teaches a plurality of vertical running modules aligned in pairs), and wherein:
the at least one vertical running module (VRM1 in Fig. 41B, Annotated) is a plurality of vertical running modules connecting the lower runway (LR in Fig. 41B, Annotated) to the first upper runway (UR1 in Fig. 41B, Annotated) and the first upper runway (UR1 in Fig. 41B, Annotated) to the second upper runway (UR2 in Fig. 41B, Annotated) (Fig. 41B, Annotated teaches a plurality of vertical running modules connecting the plurality of runways together, exemplified by the singular VRM1 which connects LR to UR1);
the vertical running modules define passage openings therebetween (Fig. 43A and Para. [0232] teach openings adjacent to the Passive Switches 1176, therein called ‘vertical breaks’) and are disposed one above the other, the passage openings being dimensioned such that the {wheel} assemblies are operable to switch between a vertical running position and a horizontal running position for running into or out of the running rail configuration (Fig. 43A and Para. [0232] teach vertical breaks such that the Vehicle 1174 can selectively enter the Vertical Ramp 1170 or Horizontal Bot Track 1184 by changing the position of its wheel and sprocket assemblies); and
the {wheel} assemblies are continuously in contact with at least one vertical running module when crossing the passage openings in the vertical running position (Fig. 43A teaches the Bearings 1182 and Sprocket Gearwheels 1178 being constantly in contact with Vertical 1174 as the Vehicle 1172 passes the vertical breaks while rising in the tracks).
PNG
media_image3.png
732
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lert Figs. 41A & B, Annotated
Lert further teaches that the plurality of vertical running modules (Verticals 1174) allows the vehicle (1172) to move to any storage level in the disclosed system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the running rail configuration of Bhaskar as modified above to comprise the second upper runway and vertical running modules with passage openings as taught by Lert in order to form a more useful system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Bhaskar as modified above with said elements of Lert comes from the teachings of Lert, as discussed above. A person of reasonable skill in the art with the teachings of Lert in front of them would recognize that the ability to have a vehicle move between any level on a multi-level track system would advantageously allow the vehicle a wide degree of mobility. Therefore doing so would make a more useful system.
Regarding Claims 40-42 Bhaskar, as modified above, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejections of claims 37-39 below, having different dependencies but similar limitations).
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert, Bhaskar, BOECKER, and TOMITA.
Regarding Claim 37 Lert teaches a method for running on a running rail configuration (Paras. [0235]- [0238]) with {a wheeled} vehicle (1056), comprising the following steps:
approaching, of the {wheeled} vehicle (1056), to the running rail configuration on one of a lower runway and an upper runway (Fig. 39A and Para. [0238] teach a Vehicle 1056 approaching a Ramp 1052);
shifting the {sprocket} assemblies along a respective {wheel} axis from a retracted position to an extended position (Para. [0238] teaches the Vehicle 1056 extending its sprockets so that it is in a “climbing mode”);
running into the running rail configuration by engaging the {sprockets} with the structure of the respective running rails (Para. [0238] teaches the sprockets engaging a “passive roller chain” which is attached to the “ramp”);
running on the running rail configuration (1050) between an area of the lower runway and an area of the upper runway (Fig. 39B and Para. [0238] teach a Vehicle 1056 climbing Ramp 1052);
engaging, of the {sprockets}, with the structure of the respective transition elements (Figs. 40A-D and Para. [0238] teach the Sprockets 1080 engaging a transition between horizontal Track 1054 and climbing Ramp 1052);
running on the transition elements and {shifting the wheels along an} axis into the horizontal running position (Fig. 39D and Para. [0238] teach the Vehicle 1056 shifting the wheel assemblies to a position to facilitate movement along a horizontal Track 1054); and
running out of the running rail configuration and running onto one of the upper runway and the lower runway ((Fig. 39E and Para. [0238] teach a Vehicle 1056 exiting the climbing Ramp 1052 in order to run on a horizontal Track 1054).
Lert does not teach that the vehicle comprises a clamping device.
Bhaskar teaches a clamping device as described in the 103 rejections of claims 21 and 29.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lert, as modified above, to include the clamping device as taught by Bhaskar in order to make a more reliable system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Lert with the clamping device of Bhaskar comes knowledge well known in the art that a running rail system in which the vehicle has means to clamp to the running rail is, advantageously, less likely to slip on said running rail. Therefore doing so would make a more reliable system.
Lert, as modified above, does not teach that the vehicle comprises caterpillar assemblies and tilting means.
BOECKER and TOMITA teach the caterpillar assemblies and the tilting means as claimed in claim 29. See the 103 rejection of claim 29 above for these teachings and the motivations to combine them with the running rail configuration of Bhaskar. A person of reasonable skill in the art would recognize that the teachings and motivations presented there to combine said teachings with the running rail configuration of Bhaskar would also apply to combining said teachings with the running rail configuration of Lert.
Lert, as modified above to include the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER and the tilting means of TOMITA, does not teach, as part of the method of running the vehicle on the running rail configuration, the step of tilting the caterpillar assemblies about an axis.
TOMITA teaches a step of tilting a vehicle support assembly (Chassis 64) as it approaches a rail system (Base Rail 21) (Para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lert as modified above to include the step of tilting the caterpillar assemblies about an axis as taught by TOMITA.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the benefit of the tilting step taught by TOMITA as advantageously allowing for a load carrying device to travel from a horizontal landing to an inclined railway while holding the load it carries level. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the method of Lert as modified above to include the step of tilting the caterpillar assemblies about an axis as taught by TOMITA because doing so would make a more useful system.
Regarding Claim 38 Lert, as modified above to comprise the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER, further teaches that the step of engaging the drive tracks of the caterpillar assemblies with the structure of the respective transition elements comprises the following sub-steps:
maintaining the engagement of at least three caterpillar assemblies with one of the structures of the respective running rail and the respective transition element (Figs. 39A-E and Para. [0238] teach the Vehicle 1056 maintaining contact between the Sprockets 1088 and the Ramps 1052 at four points as it travels through the Break 1058).
Lert does not teach the sub-steps that include shifting along a clamping axis.
Bhaskar teaches a clamping means as described in the 103 rejections of claims 21 and 29.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lert as modified above to include the means of shifting the caterpillar assemblies along a clamping axis as taught by Bhaskar in order to make a more reliable system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Lert with the shifting means of Bhaskar comes knowledge well known in the art that a running rail system in which the vehicle has means to clamp to the running rail is, advantageously, less likely to slip on said running rail. Therefore doing so would make a more reliable system.
Bhaskar does not teach the method step of shifting along the clamping axis while a vehicle is traversing a transition element.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lert as modified above to include the sub-step of shifting the caterpillar assemblies along a clamping axis while a vehicle is traversing a transition element as taught by Bhaskar in order to make a more reliable system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Lert with the shifting means of Bhaskar comes knowledge well known in the art that a method for running a vehicle on a running rail system in which the vehicle has means to clamp to the running rail would benefit from a sub-step in the method that ensures the vehicle has shifted its clamping means appropriately during a transition step. Therefore doing so would make a more reliable system.
Regarding Claim 39 Lert, as modified above to comprise the caterpillar assemblies of BOECKER and inclination axis of TOMITA, further teaches, after running out of the running rail configuration, a step of shifting the caterpillar assemblies along a respective inclination axis from an extended position to a retracted position (Fig. 39D and Para. [0238] teach the Vehicle 1056 shifting the wheel assemblies to a position to facilitate movement along a horizontal Track 1054).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611