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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/23/22, 09/21/22, and 10/16/23 are being considered by the examiner.
I. Prior Art References
Reference 1: WO9535221 (hereinafter “Ref. 1”)
Reference 2: WO2015166357 (hereinafter “Ref. 2”)
Reference 3: DE102015215178 (hereinafter “Ref. 3”)
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.
B. Rejection II: Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (WO9535221) in view of Reference 2 (WO2015166357).
1. Claim 12
Claim 12 is reproduced above. For the alternative obviousness analysis, the claim is construed as directed to a drive unit having:
two energy supplies (first via contact element and external conductor, second via internal battery),
at least one electric motor configurable to receive energy from both supplies, and
an arrangement where the first and second supplies are associated with different motors that drive different drive elements using separate batteries/chargers.
Mapping to Ref. 1 and Ref. 2
Ref. 1 discloses a self-propelled chassis traveling in an elevated guideway with:
an electric motor for propulsion;
a first energy supply from power rails through mechanical current collectors;
a substantial onboard battery system (twenty 12-V batteries) that can supply propulsion power when external supply is disrupted;
converter/booster/inverter circuitry for routing and switching power between external rails and the internal battery.
Ref. 2 discloses an aerial cableway where:
multiple wheel-mounted electric motors drive different wheels/drive elements;
the motors are powered by battery packs on the vehicle;
the batteries are charged from fixed conductors in the stations;
redundancy of motors and energy storage is expressly taught as advantageous to maintain operation even if one motor or battery fails.
The combination of Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 teaches a drive unit with multiple motors, each associated with its own energy storage and drive elements, in a system that already uses external conductor power and onboard battery backup.
Rationale to combine
Both Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 are directed to autonomously moving passenger vehicles running on elevated or supported structures. Both address the need for reliable propulsion in the presence of external supply interruptions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the multi-motor, separately powered architecture of Ref. 2 into the mixed external/internal energy system of Ref. 1 to achieve predictable improvements in redundancy and reliability. Providing separate motors with separate batteries and charging circuits for different drive elements would be a routine engineering modification, motivated by the desire to maintain propulsion even if one motor or one battery chain fails.
Accordingly, even with the added “different electric motors … different drive elements … separate batteries and charging devices” limitation, claim 12 would have been obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
2. Claim 13
Claim 13 reads:
(Previously Presented) The drive unit as recited in claim 12, wherein the at least one battery is rechargeable using a charging device, the charging device being configured to interact at least indirectly with the electrical conductor on the support structure.
Ref. 1 discloses that the onboard batteries are recharged from the guideway power rails through collection shoes and charging circuitry (battery charger). Ref. 2 similarly discloses charging onboard batteries via fixed conductors. Thus the additional limitation of claim 13 is taught in Ref. 1 alone and, in any event, would clearly be obvious in view of Ref. 1 and Ref. 2. Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Claim 15
Claim 15 (Recited):
15. The drive unit as recited in claim 12, further comprising: a detector configured to detect a presence of the electrical conductor on the support structure at least indirectly.
Analysis (Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2):
Ref. 1 teaches detecting station approach or route merges via a “signalling system” and a “vehicle controller” (control computer 62) that receives direction-of-travel signals from the guideway.
However, Ref. 1 does not explicitly disclose a “detector” for the presence of the rail per se.
Ref. 2 teaches that cableway vehicles use sensors (e.g., wheel or proximity sensors) to confirm the location or presence of an external power line for station usage.
One skilled in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Ref. 2’s sensor approach into Ref. 1 so the module can detect presence/absence of the power rail sections. This yields predictable benefits of automated alignment and safe power collection.
Motivation to Combine:
Using Ref. 2’s teaching of location/presence sensors for an external conductor ensures that Ref. 1’s vehicle can automatically detect conductor presence to facilitate switching or power collection, an expected and straightforward design choice.
Therefore, Claim 15 would have been obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Claim 16
Claim 16 (Recited):
16. The drive unit as recited in claim 12, further comprising: a switch configured to switch the at least one electric motor as needed to an active connection with at least one of the first and second energy supplies.
Analysis (Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2):
Ref. 1 discloses a battery 49 plus power rails 23, and the vehicle automatically switches to battery power in disruptions. However, it does not explicitly recite a user or system “switch” for normal operation.
Ref. 2 discusses actively switching between external cable line power and onboard battery for station movement.
It would have been obvious to integrate a dedicated switch into the Ref. 1 system to allow direct selection between the conductor supply and onboard battery, consistent with Ref. 2’s teaching for station transitions or normal operation.
Motivation to Combine:
Motivated by the desire for seamless transitions and flexible operation, a skilled artisan would incorporate a switch as in Ref. 2 to ensure the electric motor can connect to either supply on demand.
Hence, Claim 16 is unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Claim 17
Claim 17 reads:
(Previously Presented) The drive unit as recited in claim 12, wherein the at least one contact element of the first energy supply is a mechanical current collector.
Ref. 1 expressly discloses power collection shoes that are mechanical current collectors sliding on the power rails. The limitation of claim 17 is thus taught in Ref. 1 and is clearly obvious in view of Ref. 1 and Ref. 2. Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Claim 19
Claim 19 (currently amended) reads (in relevant part):
(Currently amended) A self-driving vehicle, comprising:
a drive unit for a self-driving vehicle of an elevated-track-type support structure, the drive unit including:
at least one electric motor configured to move the drive unit along the support structure, the at least one electric motor being configured to be at least indirectly driven using a first energy supply, the first energy supply having at least one contact element which is configured to interact with an electrical conductor immovably situated on the support structure, and
at least one battery disposed inside the drive unit and installed between the at least one electric motor and the at least one contact element of the first energy supply, and a second energy supply configured to drive the at least one electric motor, the second energy supply including at least one battery situated inside the drive unit, and the at least one electric motor is configured to be brought into direct contact with the at least one contact element of the first energy supply and with the at least one battery of the second energy supply, wherein the first energy supply and the second energy supply interact with different electric motors, the electric motors interacting with different drive elements of the drive unit, and the electric motors are coupled with separate batteries and charging devices;
and a gondola, which is at least indirectly connected to the drive unit, configured to transport persons or freight.
Ref. 1 already discloses a self-driving vehicle with a drive chassis and a passenger gondola. As explained for claim 12, it would have been obvious to adopt the multi-motor, separate-battery architecture of Ref. 2 for the drive unit of Ref. 1. Claim 19 merely adds the gondola, which is already present in Ref. 1. Thus, claim 19 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
C. Rejection III: Claims 20, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (WO9535221) in view of Reference 3 (DE102015215178) and in further view of Ref. 2 where needed.
Claim 20
Claim 20 (Recited):
20. A support structure for a drive unit for a self-driving vehicle … [describes a support device in the form of at least one support rail or a support cable along which the drive unit is movable, an electrical conductor … wherein the driving route includes at least one route section where no electrical conductor is provided].
Analysis (Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 3):
Ref. 1 discloses a support structure with rails 10, 12, 24, typically containing conductor rails 23.
However, Ref. 1 does not explicitly show a route section devoid of any conductor.
Ref. 3 (DE102015215178) teaches partial catenary operation—i.e., a route having sections without an overhead line or conductor. The vehicle uses onboard battery in those conductor-free sections.
Combining Ref. 1 with Ref. 3 to provide at least one conductor-free section is obvious for cost or design reasons.
Ref. 1 discloses a support structure with rails and conductor rails along portions of the route. Ref. 3 discloses a transit system in which certain route sections are catenary-free, i.e., no external conductor is present, and vehicles rely on onboard energy storage in those sections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the guideway of Ref. 1 so that only selected sections include conductor rails, while other sections are left without conductor, relying on the onboard battery (already taught in Ref. 1) to power the vehicle along those sections. Such partial electrification is motivated by cost reduction and flexibility, as explained in Ref. 3.
Motivation to Combine:
The combination is motivated by saving infrastructure cost and having battery operation in the non-electrified stretch, a known design taught by Ref. 3.
Combined with the reasoning for claim 12 regarding multiple motors and separate batteries (Ref. 2), claim 20 would have been obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 3 (and further in view of Ref. 2 for the multi-motor detail, to the extent needed).
Claim 21
Claim 21 (Recited):
21. The support structure as recited in claim 20, further comprising: identifiers for marking route sections that include an electrical conductor and/or route sections that do not include an electrical conductor, the identifiers being provided along the driving route or the route section, and the identifiers being detectable by a detector of the drive unit.
Analysis (Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 3):
Ref. 1 provides a guideway signaling system but not explicit “identifiers” for conductor vs. no-conductor.
Ref. 3 teaches that in partially catenary-free lines, route sections are often labeled or signaled so the vehicle’s pantograph/battery system can respond accordingly (detector approach).
One of skill would incorporate these identifiers from Ref. 3 into Ref. 1’s guideway to mark electrified vs. nonelectrified sections, ensuring the drive unit can switch or detect presence/absence of external power.
Motivation to Combine:
Marking route sections is a straightforward adaptation, improving automation. Ref. 3 explicitly mentions location detection to handle catenary-free transitions.
Hence, Claim 21 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 3.
Claim 22
(Currently amended) A transport system, comprising:
a support structure for a drive unit for a self-driving vehicle of the support structure, the support structure including
a support device in the form of at least one support rail or a support cable for establishing a driving route or a route section along which the drive unit is movable, and
an electrical conductor at least regionally situated on the support device, which interacts with a contact element of the first energy supply of the drive unit, wherein the driving route includes at least one route section where no electrical conductor is provided;
at least one drive unit including:
at least one electric motor configured to move the drive unit along the support structure … [same drive-unit language as claim 12, including the clause that]
the first energy supply and the second energy supply interact with different electric motors, the electric motors interacting with different drive elements of the drive unit, and the electric motors are coupled with separate batteries and charging devices;
wherein identifiers are situated along the driving route or the route section, and a detector is situated or developed on the drive unit in such a way that a steady supply of energy to the at least one electric motor of the drive unit is provided by at least one of the first and second energy supplies.
Claim 22 essentially combines the subject matter of claims 12, 20, and 21 into a single system claim. For reasons discussed above:
The mixed external/internal energy drive unit with multiple motors and separate batteries is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
The support structure having partially electrified route sections and identifiers is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 3.
The detector and steady energy-supply arrangement is a straightforward implementation of the combined teachings of Ref. 1, Ref. 2, and Ref. 3 to ensure proper switching between external conductor and onboard battery when entering/exiting conductor-free segments.
Therefore, claim 22 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and Ref. 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments 11/13/2025
Applicant’s remarks dated November 13, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant has amended claims 12, 19–22 and cancelled claim 14. Applicant argues that the amendments overcome all outstanding rejections and requests withdrawal of the §112(b), §102, and §103 rejections. See Applicant’s Remarks, pages 8–11.
The Examiner has carefully considered the amendments and the arguments of record but finds them not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
1. Response to Amendments and §112(b) Arguments
Applicant amended claim 12 to replace “and/or” with “and” and asserts this resolves the indefiniteness issue. See Applicant’s Remarks at 8.
Although the amendment removes the explicit “and/or” formulation, the amended claim introduces new ambiguities that prevent the claim from particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention.
Specifically, amended claim 12 simultaneously recites:
“the at least one electric motor … is configured to be brought into direct contact with … the first energy supply and … the at least one battery of the second energy supply” (claim 12, page 2 of amendments), and
“the first energy supply and the second energy supply interact with different electric motors, the electric motors interacting with different drive elements … and the electric motors are coupled with separate batteries and charging devices.” See page 2–3 of amendments.
These two limitations are inherently contradictory:
If the first energy supply interacts with one motor and the second with a different motor, then it is unclear which motor is “the at least one electric motor” that is “configured to be brought into direct contact” with both the first energy supply and the second energy supply battery.
The claim also becomes unclear as to whether the phrase “the electric motors are coupled with separate batteries and charging devices” requires one battery/charger per motor, two separate battery systems per energy supply, or some other configuration.
Accordingly, although the “and/or” phrasing was removed, a new §112(b) indefiniteness issue arises from the internal inconsistency between the “single motor receiving both supplies” clause and the “different motors for different supplies” clause. The claim scope cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, the §112(b) rejection is maintained on this new basis.
2. Response to §102 Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 12 now includes limitations from former claim 14 and therefore is no longer anticipated by WO95/35221 (“Ref. 1”). See Applicant’s Remarks at 8–9.
The Examiner agrees that the additional limitations in amended claim 12 are not expressly disclosed in Ref. 1. Accordingly, the §102 rejection of claim 12 and its dependent claims is withdrawn.
However, as explained below, the addition of these limitations does not overcome the §103 rejections because the newly added features remain obvious in view of the cited art.
3. Response to §103 Arguments (Claims 12, 15, 16, 18, 19–22)
Applicant argues that Ref. 1 and WO2015/166357 (“Ref. 2”) “cannot be combined,” that the combination would render Ref. 1 “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” and that Ref. 2 teaches away from the combination. See pages 9–10 of Applicant’s Remarks.
These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
A. The references are properly combinable
Applicant asserts that Ref. 1 concerns a PRT switching system relying on external power lines, whereas Ref. 2 relates to cableway vehicles powered predominantly from onboard wheel motors and station charging, and that combining the two would “undermine” Ref. 1’s intended purpose. See Remarks at 9–10.
This argument mischaracterizes both references.
Ref. 1 explicitly teaches onboard energy storage used to maintain vehicle motion when external power is unavailable. Ref. 1 describes a backup system of “twenty 12V batteries” supplying 240 VDC and a converter boosting voltage to 600 VDC for propulsion when the main supply is disrupted. See Ref. 1 description of battery 49 and booster units. This teaching establishes that Ref. 1 already contemplates redundant propulsion energy paths and is not exclusively devoted to external power operation.
Ref. 2 teaches multiple electric motors driving different vehicle elements, with separate battery systems and charging mechanisms. Ref. 2 repeatedly emphasizes redundancy for safe operation and continuous controllability in stations and non-powered segments.
Because both references address autonomous or semi-autonomous guideway vehicles with mixed external/internal energy architectures, they are squarely analogous and their teachings are reasonably combinable under MPEP 2141 and 2143.
There is no showing that adding a second motor/energy path to Ref. 1 would prevent the system from performing its switching function. Rather, such redundancy is a routine engineering design choice to improve availability and reliability—improvements both references value.
B. The combination does not render Ref. 1 “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”
Applicant argues that incorporating Ref. 2’s multiple-motor configuration increases structural complexity and would “undermine” Ref. 1’s lightweight system. See Remarks at 10.
However, the law requires showing that the modification fundamentally prevents the prior art from functioning, not merely that it introduces engineering tradeoffs. MPEP §2143.01(V). Applicant has made no such showing.
Ref. 1’s intended purpose is to provide a self-propelled vehicle capable of reliably navigating a guideway with controlled switching and emergency power capability. None of these purposes is defeated by providing separate motors for first and second energy supplies. In fact, the modification is consistent with Ref. 1’s discussion of fail-operability and power backup.
Thus, Applicant’s argument lacks factual support.
C. Motivation to combine remains strong
Applicant argues that there is “no motivation” to combine Ref. 1 and Ref. 2. See Remarks at 9.
To the contrary, motivation arises naturally because:
Both references address autonomous vehicles that must maintain mobility even when external conductor power is unavailable.
Ref. 2 teaches redundant propulsion motors and separate power supplies explicitly to ensure operation despite motor or battery malfunction—exactly the improvement applicant now claims as “advantageous.” See page 9 of Remarks referencing redundancy.
Ref. 1 already uses an extensive onboard battery system to maintain propulsion under disrupted conditions, which would benefit from the improved redundancy taught by Ref. 2.
These teachings provide a clear, predictable rationale to combine the references.
D. Applicant’s argument that Ref. 3 “fails to disclose anything about the feature” is misplaced
Ref. 3 (DE102015215178) was properly cited for other claim limitations, including partial electrification of a route and the use of identifiers for switching between power modes—limitations relevant to claims 20–22. Applicant does not dispute those teachings.
The fact that Ref. 3 does not also teach the “different motors / separate batteries” limitation does not preclude its use as a secondary reference for the features it does teach. Applicant’s argument therefore does not overcome the §103 rejection of claims 20–22.
E. Amended independent claims remain obvious
Amended claim 12 now incorporates limitations previously recited in claim 14. Applicant argues these were not shown in the prior art. However:
Ref. 2 explicitly teaches multiple motors driven from separate battery subsystems.
Ref. 1 teaches a mixed energy-supply model using external conductors and onboard batteries.
Combining these teachings yields the claimed configuration as a predictable variation.
Thus, the amendment does not render claim 12 non-obvious.
Claims 19–22 recite the same feature, and for the same reasons, they remain obvious over the cited combinations.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments 06/03/2026
Applicant’s arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive, except as to the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn because the amended claims now identify the first electric motor as the motor with which both the first energy supply and the second energy supply interact. The amended claims also separately recite a second electric motor, and recite that the first and second electric motors interact with different drive elements and are coupled with separate batteries and charging devices. Accordingly, the prior ambiguity regarding whether one motor or different motors were associated with the first and second energy supplies has been sufficiently addressed.
However, the amendments do not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Claims 12, 13, 15–17, and 19
With respect to claims 12, 13, 15–17, and 19, applicant argues that neither Kim nor Blengini teaches the particular allocation of motors, drive elements, batteries, and charging devices now recited. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the full scope of the claims and does not address the combined teachings of the references.
The amended claims require a first electric motor and a second electric motor. The first energy supply and the second energy supply interact with the first electric motor. The first and second electric motors interact with different drive elements, and the first and second electric motors are coupled with separate batteries and charging devices.
Kim teaches a vehicle powered from external conductor rails and from onboard batteries, including backup propulsion in the event external power is disrupted. Kim further teaches multiple propulsion motors and redundant power-conversion structures, including duplicate inverters and duplicate transformers. Thus, Kim teaches the mixed external/internal power architecture and the use of multiple propulsion-related electrical components for reliability and continued operation.
Blengini teaches multiple motor-driven drive elements, including motor-driven wheels associated with a suspended transport vehicle. Blengini also teaches onboard battery power and charging from fixed conductors. Blengini’s teaching of multiple motor-driven drive elements would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that propulsion may be distributed among multiple driven elements rather than supplied through a single drive element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim’s external-conductor/onboard-battery propulsion architecture with Blengini’s multiple motor-driven drive-element arrangement. It would further have been obvious to provide separate batteries and charging devices associated with separate drive motors in order to avoid single-point failures in an autonomous passenger transport vehicle. In particular, providing one motor/drive element with a separate battery and charging path from another motor/drive element predictably allows the vehicle to maintain propulsion if one motor, battery, or charging path malfunctions. This rationale is directly tied to the reliability and continued-operation concerns taught by Kim and Blengini.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination would change Kim’s principle of operation because Kim allegedly operates using a centralized vehicle power system. This argument is not persuasive. Kim’s principle of operation is not limited to a centralized power bus. Kim’s relevant principle of operation is a self-propelled guideway vehicle capable of traveling along an elevated guideway, switching without moving guideway elements, and maintaining operation using both external power and onboard battery power. Providing separately powered motor/drive paths does not prevent Kim’s vehicle from traveling on the guideway, receiving external power, operating from onboard battery power, or switching through guideway sections. Rather, the modification predictably improves Kim’s reliability and fault tolerance.
Applicant also argues that Blengini does not disclose a single motor with which both an external conductor-based energy supply and an internal battery-based energy supply interact. This argument is not persuasive because Kim, not Blengini, is relied upon for the teaching of a motor supplied through both external conductor power and onboard battery power. Blengini is relied upon for the additional teaching of multiple motor-driven drive elements and the desirability of distributing propulsion among multiple driven elements.
Thus, the combination of Kim and Blengini teaches or renders obvious the amended limitations of claim 12. Claims 13, 15–17, and 19 are not separately patentable for the reasons previously set forth and for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 12, 13, 15–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites that the contact element of the first energy supply is a contact element operating as a contact element for inductive energy transmission.
Upon reconsideration of the prior art of record, the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is withdrawn.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 12, but claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 12 and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations of claim 12, the claimed contact element operating as a contact element for inductive energy transmission.
Claims 20–22
With respect to claims 20–22, applicant argues that Kerscher does not disclose the claimed motor allocation and does not disclose the claimed route-section identifiers.
These arguments are not persuasive.
Kerscher is not relied upon for the amended motor-allocation limitations. The limitations relating to the first electric motor, second electric motor, different drive elements, and separate batteries and charging devices are taught or rendered obvious by Kim and Blengini, as discussed above.
Kerscher is relied upon for partial electrification and route-section identification. Kerscher teaches conductor-equipped regions and conductor-free operation using onboard energy storage. Kerscher also teaches signal generators, location/control signals, and onboard receiving or detection functionality used to determine when conductor interaction and power-management transitions should occur.
Applicant argues that Kerscher’s signaling is merely associated with raising or lowering a pantograph and managing contact-wire transitions near a stop, and therefore is not the claimed identifier. This argument is not persuasive because claim 21 does not require the identifiers to have any particular physical structure, visual format, encoded label, or continuous placement throughout the route. The claim requires identifiers for marking route sections that include an electrical conductor and route sections that do not include an electrical conductor, where the identifiers are provided along the driving route or route section and are detectable by a detector of the drive unit.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Kerscher’s signal generators, beacons, location information, and/or control signals constitute identifiers because they indicate to the vehicle whether it is approaching or entering a conductor-equipped section or a conductor-free section. Such information is used by the vehicle to manage the transition between external conductor power and onboard stored-energy operation. Therefore, Kerscher teaches or at least renders obvious identifiers marking conductor-present and conductor-absent route sections.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Kerscher’s partially electrified route structure and detectable route-section identifiers into Kim’s guideway system. Kim already teaches onboard battery operation when external power is interrupted, while Kerscher teaches planned operation through route sections lacking an external conductor. The combination would have predictably reduced infrastructure cost and simplified route construction while maintaining vehicle operation using onboard stored energy.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights