DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on March 31, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Borges, Rafael Mendes, and Egidio Quaglietta. “Assessing hyperloop transport capacity under moving-block and virtual coupling operations.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, no. 8 (2021): 12612-12621 [herein “Borges”] in view of Gago, José Ángel Fernández, and Federico Collado Pérez-Seoane. “Quantification of transport offer linked to a european hyperloop network.” R-Evolucionando el transporte (2021): 2427-2449 [herein “Gago”], and in further view of Jeker, Sibylle. "Hyperloop network design." PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, 2019 [herein “Jeker”].
Claim 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Borges, Gago, and Jeker as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sushma, M. B., and Avijit Maji. “A modified motion planning algorithm for horizontal highway alignment development.” Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 35, no. 8 (2020): 818-831 [herein “Sushma”].
This action is made Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 31, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 23, 2026 with the exception to the specification objection(s) provided in this Office Action below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: the use of the term “ARM”, “WIFI”, and “LTE”, which is are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, which cites “the portal configuration parameters” in Ln. 6, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the portal configuration parameters”. For the purpose of examination, “the portal configuration parameters” will be interpreted as “the first portal configuration parameters”. Claims 10 and 19, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Claims 2-9, claims 11-18, and claim 20 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “substantially in real-time”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially in real-time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (See MPEP § 2173.05(b)). Claims 10 and 19, having similar limitations as claim 1, are also rejection under the similar rationale. Claims 2-9, claims 11-18, and claim 20, which are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively, are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 10-18 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 9-20 are directed to a computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The limitations of: “generating, based on the first portal configuration parameters, a first logical layout of the hyperloop portal, the first logical layout of the hyperloop portal representing the relationships between the first portal configuration parameters” and “generating, based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal; and rendering a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper a logical layout that represents how a hyperloop transportation system connects two stations through a path such as station A is 5 miles from station B through a curve path navigation around an object in a terrain, and a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper a visual representation of a physical layout that represents the logical layout of the stations and the path between two stations through a representation on a map in less than an hour.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “at a processor”, “A design system configured to design a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal, the design system comprising: a memory; a processor”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional elements of “receiving, at a processor, first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters representing the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters” and “receiving, at the processor, first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 10, and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, they recite an additional element recitation of “receiving, at the processor, a plurality of design goals, the plurality of design goals being configured to evaluate the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, they recite an additional limitation of “optimizing the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with a pen and paper the physical layout based on the constraints in the path between two stations such as national park or protective area, thus creating a change in the portal configuration parameters, such as location and direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 12, they recite additional element recitations of “at the processor” and “the processor being further configured to” is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the optimizing is performed using curvature fitting, geometric alignment, genetic-algorithm alignment, or a combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with a pen and paper the physical layout based on the constraints in the path between two stations such as national park or protective area such as using curve fitting between points to go around a national park or protective area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 13, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the optimizing is performed using curvature fitting, geometric alignment, genetic-algorithm alignment, or a combination thereof” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the best fit between two points on a curve can be accomplished using curve fitting equations (see Para. 0127, the equations used in curve fitting can be found: https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~webbky/ESC440_files/Section%204%20Curve%20Fitting.pdf).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves, the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with a pen and paper the physical layout based on the constraints and design goals in the path between two stations such as national park or protective area such as using curve fitting between points to go around a national park or protective area to create different options for the physical layout.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 14, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves, the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the best fit between two points on a curve can be accomplished using curve fitting equations to create different options for the physical layout based on the design goals and distance (see Para. 0127, the equations used in curve fitting can be found: https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~webbky/ESC440_files/Section%204%20Curve%20Fitting.pdf).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, they recite additional limitations of:
“simulating the first physical layout”,
“evaluating the first physical layout, the evaluating being based on the plurality of design goals and the simulating”, and
“generating a third plurality of portal configuration parameters, the third plurality of portal configuration parameters being based on the evaluating of the first physical layout” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper the time for the hyperloop pod to travel from one station to another using general physics equations,
a person can mentally determine if the layout meets the design goal if the travel time determined in the simulation is less than the travel time required from the design goal (Para. 0136, “Considerations for performing further evaluation may be performed by human interaction and/or the process 401 itself. In one aspect, the process 401 determines, based on a plurality of design goals, whether the candidate portal configuration parameters (and any associated physical layout) meet said design goals (e.g., reduced land footprint, increased efficiency of hyperloop vehicles, reduced carbon footprint, etc.). For instance, a plurality of analytics may be generated based on the candidate portal configuration parameters such that the process 401 may, in advance, determine the next plurality of candidate portal configuration parameters. On the other hand, a human designer may substantially manually select the better candidates from the candidate portal configuration parameters.”), and
a person can mentally determine if the layout meets the design goal then the parameters used for the design will be chosen or altered for used in a new simulation if the layout does not meet the design goal.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 15, they recite an additional limitation of “simulating the first physical layout”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the time necessary to complete traveling between points on a curve can be accomplished using general physics equations (see Para. 0134 “Given that the portal configuration parameters 302A, 302B, 302C may have some aspects configurable and others not, the simulation may generate simulation data that may be associated with the portal configuration data 302A, 302B, 302C. For instance, the travel time of the hyperloop vehicle 110 may be determined and associated with the portal configuration parameters 302A, 302B, 302C.”, the equations used to determine time traveled on a curve can be found: https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/Georgia_State_University/GSU-TM-Physics_I_(2211)/05%3A_Newton's_Laws_of_Motion/5.07%3A_Motion_in_a_Curved_Path).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 15, it recites additional element recitations of “at the processor” and “the processor being further configured to” is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, they recite additional limitations of “generating a real-world map” and “generating, based on the first physical layout, a second physical layout, the second physical layout being associated with the real-world map”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper draw a real-world map of a certain area, and a person can mentally superimpose or draw with a pen and paper the physical layout on the real-world map.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 16, they recite additional element recitations of “at the processor” and “the processor being further configured to” is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the first alignment data comprises construction-based constraints, operational-based constraints, geographic-based constraints, legal-based constraints, ingress geometry, egress geometry, ingress grade, egress grade, horizontal spacing, vertical spacing, geometric entity types, or a combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with a pen and paper the physical layout based on the geographic-based constraints in the path between two stations such as national park or protective area, thus creating a change in the portal configuration parameters, such as location and direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the first portal configuration parameters comprise portal ingress parameters, arrival queue parameters, emergency path parameters, branch ingress queue parameters, branch parameters, docking bay parameters, arrival stable parameters, emergency stable parameters, branch stable parameters, stabling egress queue parameters, branch egress queue parameters, portal egress parameters, tube parameters, or a combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper a logical layout that represents how a hyperloop transportation system connects, through a path, two stations having multiple branches.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 20, it recites an additional limitation of “optimize the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with a pen and paper the physical layout based on the constraints in the path between two stations such as national park or protective area, thus creating a change in the portal configuration parameters, such as location and direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 20, it recites an additional element recitation of “at the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, the additional element of “receive, at the processor, a plurality of design goals, the plurality of design goals being configured to evaluate the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-9, claims 11-18, and claim 20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively,
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Borges, Rafael Mendes, and Egidio Quaglietta. “Assessing hyperloop transport capacity under moving-block and virtual coupling operations.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, no. 8 (2021): 12612-12621 [herein “Borges”] in view of Gago, José Ángel Fernández, and Federico Collado Pérez-Seoane. “Quantification of transport offer linked to a european hyperloop network.” R-Evolucionando el transporte (2021): 2427-2449 [herein “Gago”], and in further view of Jeker, Sibylle. "Hyperloop network design." PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, 2019 [herein “Jeker”].
As per claim 1, Borges teaches, “A method for designing a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal”. (Pg. 12613, Sect. II, “A two-step methodological framework has been set up (Fig. 1) to assess the Hyperloop transport capacity for several pod manoeuvres on different infrastructure layouts, signalling and switching technologies as well as station configurations” [A method for designing a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal]. Further Sect. 1-2. The examiner has interpreted that creating a methodological framework to assess a Hyperloop transport capacity for different layouts and station configurations as a method for designing a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal.)
Borges teaches “receiving, at a processor, first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters representing the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters”. (Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “Capacity is here assessed in terms of the minimum time headway that can be safely allowed between two consecutive pods for each of the following system configurations which constitute an input to the model:… Station layout: for the operational scenarios with stops, the capacity is assessed for the case where intermediate stations have one single airlock but also when an airlock for each pod is available, in which case pods can load/unload customers at the same time” [e.g., receiving first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters]. Pg. 12615 Sect. 2, “Our study hence analyses different possible types of infrastructure layouts and the corresponding type of vehicle manoeuvres which could be found on a Hyperloop corridor. A combination of infrastructure layout and a manoeuvre is here defined as an operational scenario. A total of six operational scenarios have been defined considering non-stopping and stopping Hyperloop services on a plain line, a merging and a diverging junction (Fig. 4). A similar set of scenarios have been firstly defined by Aoun et al. [18] to perform a comprehensive multi-criteria assessment of next-generation train-centric railway signalling systems for different rail market segments”. [the first portal configuration parameters representing the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data]. Pg. 12616 Sect. 2, “For both MB and VC, our capacity investigation assumes two possible cases. For the first case, there is only one chamber so that a platform can be occupied by one single pod, so that if it is occupied, the next pod must wait until the capsule ahead leaves the platform. For the alternative case with two chambers, two pods can stop one behind each other at the same platform to embark/disembark passengers and/or freight while keeping a safe separation of 50 m in between” [a logical layout satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters]. Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “With the modifications described above, the EGTRAIN simulation model was able to provide more accurate pod dynamics” [e.g., at the processor]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that inputting to the EGTRAIN simulation model where stations have either a single airlock is available for the pods or an airlock for each pod is available and defining an operation scenario of pods stopping in a varying number of chambers/airlocks for the pods to embark passengers in a layout as receiving, at a processor, first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters representing the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters.)
Borges teaches “receiving, at the processor, first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters”. (Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “The inputs to the microscopic model include characteristics of the capsule (e.g. length, mass, tractive effort speed curve) as well as the infrastructure (e.g. track length, gradient, curvature radii)” [e.g., receiving, at the processor, first alignment data]. Pg. 12615 Sect. 2, “Our study hence analyses different possible types of infrastructure layouts and the corresponding type of vehicle manoeuvres which could be found on a Hyperloop corridor. A combination of infrastructure layout and a manoeuvre is here defined as an operational scenario. A total of six operational scenarios have been defined considering non-stopping and stopping Hyperloop services on a plain line, a merging and a diverging junction (Fig. 4). A similar set of scenarios have been firstly defined by Aoun et al. [18] to perform a comprehensive multi-criteria assessment of next-generation train-centric railway signalling systems for different rail market segments”. [first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that inputting into the model infrastructure data such as track length, gradient, curvature radii to determine an operation scenario having a infrastructure layout and a manoeuvre as receiving, at the processor, first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters.)
Borges teaches “generating, at the processor and based on the first portal configuration parameters, a first logical layout of the hyperloop portal, the first logical layout of the hyperloop portal representing the relationships between the first portal configuration parameters”. (Pg. 12615 Sect. 2, “Our study hence analyses different possible types of infrastructure layouts and the corresponding type of vehicle manoeuvres which could be found on a Hyperloop corridor. A combination of infrastructure layout and a manoeuvre is here defined as an operational scenario. A total of six operational scenarios have been defined considering non-stopping and stopping Hyperloop services on a plain line, a merging and a diverging junction (Fig. 4). A similar set of scenarios have been firstly defined by Aoun et al. [18] to perform a comprehensive multi-criteria assessment of next-generation train-centric railway signalling systems for different rail market segments”. [generating, based on the first portal configuration parameters, a first logical layout of the hyperloop portal]. Pg. 12616 Sect. 2, “For both MB and VC, our capacity investigation assumes two possible cases. For the first case, there is only one chamber so that a platform can be occupied by one single pod, so that if it is occupied, the next pod must wait until the capsule ahead leaves the platform. For the alternative case with two chambers, two pods can stop one behind each other at the same platform to embark/disembark passengers and/or freight while keeping a safe separation of 50 m in between” [the first logical layout of the hyperloop portal representing the relationships between the first portal configuration parameters]. Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “With the modifications described above, the EGTRAIN simulation model was able to provide more accurate pod dynamics” [e.g., at the processor]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that defining an operation scenario of pods stopping in a varying number of chambers/airlocks for the pods to embark passengers in a layout for a EGTRAIN simulation model as generating, at the processor and based on the first portal configuration parameters, a first logical layout of the hyperloop portal, the first logical layout of the hyperloop portal representing the relationships between the first portal configuration parameters.)
Borges does not specifically teach “generating, at the processor and based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal” and “rendering, at the processor, a visualization of the first physical layout”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely creating modeling of hyperloop networks, Gago teaches “generating, at the processor and based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal” and “rendering, at the processor, a visualization of the first physical layout”. (Table 1 shows a list of the transport line names with distances that connected cities (network nodes) in Europe. The distance between nodes is a portal configuration parameter, since the distance is between the portal egress and ingress, e.g., portal egress and ingress parameters. Therefore, this table is a first logical layout. Pg. 2431 Sect. 3, “The figure below shows what a European Hyperloop Transport Network would look like” [Figure 1 shows a physical layout of the European Hyperloop Transport Network as reproduced from Gago Figure 1, rendering a visualization of the first physical layout]. Pg. 2433, Sect. 3.2, “Once the utility of the network has been described, the layout of the network should follow criteria that minimise the amount of investment required for its implementation. Following this premise, the layout process begins with the viewing of the slope map of Europe Knowing the orography of a territory makes it possible to draw lines connecting cities through the flattest areas, and to use large radii of curvature” [generating based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout]. Pg. 2435 Sect. 3, “A Hyperloop station or Hyperloop gateway will have many operational similarities to a highspeed rail station, but physically it will have two well distinct zones, as is the case in any airport. In this sense, while an airport differentiates between ‘land side’ and ‘air side’, a Hyperloop station will have to differentiate between an ‘atmospheric pressure side’ and a ‘low pressure side’” and further Gago Figure 4 reproduced below as Figure 2 shows the physical layout of the hyperloop station, e.g., rendering a visualization of the first physical layout. Pg. 2430 Sect. 2, “Today, the simulation possibilities in multiple fields allow, for example, to emulate the design characteristics of transport networks using artificial intelligence algorithms. Through specific commercial software, it is also possible to emulate the annual operation of the rolling stock linked to these networks” [e.g., at the processor]. Further see Sect. 2-3. The examiner has interpreted that connecting the city lines through the flattest areas to create a map of the area with the European Hyperloop Transport Network having a scheme for hyperloop stations using simulation commercial software and artificial intelligence algorithms to emulated the design characteristics of transport networks as generating, at the processor and based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal and rendering, at the processor, a visualization of the first physical layout.)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Lines of the proposed European Hyperloop Network
PNG
media_image2.png
348
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Approach to a Hyperloop station scheme
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “generating, at the processor and based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal” and “rendering, at the processor, a visualization of the first physical layout” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Gago, into that of Borges because this modification of generating a physical layout of hyperloop network with stations for the advantageous purpose of projecting a reasonable plan of operations (Gago Pg. 2430-2431 Sect. 2). Further motivation to combine be that Borges and Gago are analogous art to the current claim directed to modeling of hyperloop networks.
Neither Borges nor Gago specifically teach “a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely creating modeling of hyperloop networks, Jeker teaches “rendering a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time”. (Pg. 27 Sect. 3.4, “We implemented a website that presents an interactive map with a precomputed Hyperloop network. The routes were computed with the pathfinding on a bitmap and each Hyperloop route was computed twice, with two different cost settings. Additionally, a completely subterraneous, direct Hyperloop route and the existing SBB train route are illustrated to allow comparison. A visualization of the Hyperloop network is shown in Figure 3.7” [a visualization of the first physical layout]. Pg. 29 Sect 4, “In order to analyze the behaviour of the pathfinding with different cost parameters, we compute two solutions per route. In the first run we use the averaged cost parameters from the computation of the Hyperloop route from Los Angeles to San Francisco, given in the Hyperloop Alpha paper [1]. In the second run we reduce the cost of the stations and tunnels according to a recent statement from Elon Musk” [a visualization of the first physical layout]. Pg. 37 Sect. 5.1, “To achieve real-time performance with the algorithm, the frequency of spline fitting and path computation must be reduced. One possibility is to precompute shorter paths for subsections of the map, which could then be reused during the real-time computation. Another approach is to redefine neighbor nodes in the A-Star algorithm, by not only looking at the direct neighbors, but to include a larger area” [in real-time]. Further see Sect. 3-5. The examiner has interpreted that computing pathfinding for a hyperloop network having routes and reducing cost of the starts in redefined neighbor nodes to achieve real-time performance with an algorithm as rendering a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “rendering a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Jeker, into that of Borges and Gago because this modification of generating a physical layout representation of hyperloop network with stations in real-time for the advantageous purpose of reducing the cost and time of providing a solution to the hyperloop network design (Gago Pg 29 & 37). Further motivation to combine be that Borges, Gago, and Jeker analogous art to the current claim directed to modeling of hyperloop networks.
As per claim 2, Borges teaches “receiving, at the processor, a plurality of design goals, the plurality of design goals being configured to evaluate the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof. (Pg. 12613, Sect. II, “A two-step methodological framework has been set up (Fig. 1) to assess the Hyperloop transport capacity for several pod manoeuvres on different infrastructure layouts, signalling and switching technologies as well as station configurations” [receiving, at the processor, a plurality of design goals, the plurality of design goals being configured to evaluate the first logical layout]. Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “With the modifications described above, the EGTRAIN simulation model was able to provide more accurate pod dynamics” [e.g., at the processor]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that assessing capacity and pod manoeuvres for different station layouts in a EGTRAIN simulation model as receiving, at the processor, a plurality of design goals, the plurality of design goals being configured to evaluate the first logical layout.)
As per claim 3, Borges does not specifically teach “optimizing, at the processor, the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters.”
However, Gago teaches “optimizing, at the processor, the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters.” (Pg. 2433, Sect. 3.2, “Knowing the orography of a territory makes it possible to draw lines connecting cities through the flattest areas” [optimizing the first physical layout], “and to use large radii of curvature” [the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters]. Pg. 2430 Sect. 2, “Today, the simulation possibilities in multiple fields allow, for example, to emulate the design characteristics of transport networks using artificial intelligence algorithms. Through specific commercial software, it is also possible to emulate the annual operation of the rolling stock linked to these networks” [e.g., at the processor]. Further see Sect. 2-3. The examiner has interpreted that connecting the city lines through the flattest areas and using the largest radii of curve to create a map of the area with the European Hyperloop Transport Network having a scheme for hyperloop stations using simulation commercial software and artificial intelligence algorithms to emulated the design characteristics of transport networks as optimizing, at the processor, the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “optimizing, at the processor, the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Gago, into that of Borges because this modification of optimizing the physical layout of hyperloop network for the advantageous purpose of minimizing the amount of investment required for the implementation of the transportation network as well as generating maximum allowable speeds of the hyperloop capsules (Gago Pg. 2433 Sect. 3.2 and Sect. 3.3.1, respectively). Further motivation to combine be that Borges and Gago are analogous art to the current claim directed to modeling of hyperloop networks.
As per claim 6, Borges does not specifically teach “simulating, at the processor, the first physical layout”, “evaluating, at the processor, the first physical layout, the evaluating being based on the plurality of design goals and the simulating”, and “generating, at the processor, a third plurality of portal configuration parameters, the third plurality of portal configuration parameters being based on the evaluating of the first physical layout.”
However, Gago teaches “simulating, at the processor, the first physical layout”. (Pg. 2430 Sect. 2, “Today, the simulation possibilities in multiple fields allow, for example, to emulate the design characteristics of transport networks using artificial intelligence algorithms. Through specific commercial software, it is also possible to emulate the annual operation of the rolling stock linked to these networks” [e.g., at the processor and simulating]. Pg. 2433 Sect. 3.2, “After defining the layout of the network, the next step would be to determine its characteristics” [e.g., simulating the first physical layout]. Further Pg 2435 Sect. 3.2.2, “The figure above shows the acceleration, deceleration, constant speed and maximum constant speed zones linked to each of the lines of the proposed European Hyperloop Network” [e.g., simulating the first physical layout]. Further see Sect. 2-3. The examiner has interpreted that determining characteristics of the proposed European Hyperloop Network having a scheme for hyperloop stations after defining the layout of the network such as acceleration, deceleration, constant speed and maximum constant speed zones of the network using simulation commercial software and artificial intelligence algorithms to emulate the design characteristics of transport networks as simulating, at the processor, the first physical layout.)
Gago teaches “evaluating, at the processor, the first physical layout, the evaluating being based on the plurality of design goals and the simulating” and “generating, at the processor, a third plurality of portal configuration parameters, the third plurality of portal configuration parameters being based on the evaluating of the first physical layout.” (Pg. 2443 Sect. 3.3.8, “Despite the above, the need for three tubes in each direction on line 7 results in unsatisfied demand at rush hour” [evaluating, the first physical layout the evaluating being based on the plurality of design goals and the simulating]. Pg. 2444 Sect. 3.3.9 “Based on the approaches described above, table 5 is provided showing those lines which in the period 2020-2098 will gradually increase their need for tubes per direction by more than one. The table shows the values for the need for tubes both in the case where the capacity limit of the passenger capsules is 100 or 200 seats” [generating a third plurality of portal configuration parameters, the third plurality of portal configuration parameters being based on the evaluating of the first physical layout]. “Today, the simulation possibilities in multiple fields allow, for example, to emulate the design characteristics of transport networks using artificial intelligence algorithms. Through specific commercial software, it is also possible to emulate the annual operation of the rolling stock linked to these networks” [e.g., at the processor and the simulating]. Further see Sect. 3. The examiner has interpreted that graduating increasing the need for additional tubes in each direction as well as increasing the capsule capacity to meet the demand at rush hour using simulation commercial software and artificial intelligence algorithms to emulated the design characteristics of transport networks as evaluating, at the processor, the first physical layout, the evaluating being based on the plurality of design goals and the simulating and generating, at the processor, a third plurality of portal configuration parameters, the third plurality of portal configuration parameters being based on the evaluating of the first physical layout.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “simulating, at the processor, the first physical layout”, “evaluating, at the processor, the first physical layout, the evaluating being based on the plurality of design goals and the simulating”, and “generating, at the processor, a third plurality of portal configuration parameters, the third plurality of portal configuration parameters being based on the evaluating of the first physical layout.” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Gago, into that of Borges because this modification of simulating and evaluating the physical layout of hyperloop network for the advantageous purpose of adjusting parameters of the system to meet design requirements (Gago Pg. 2443 Sect. 3) Further motivation to combine be that Borges and Gago are analogous art to the current claim directed to modeling of hyperloop networks.
As per claim 7, Borges does not specifically teach “generating, at the processor, a real-world map; and generating, at the processor and based on the first physical layout, a second physical layout, the second physical layout being associated with the real-world map.”
However, Gago teaches “generating, at the processor, a real-world map; and generating, at the processor and based on the first physical layout, a second physical layout, the second physical layout being associated with the real-world map.” (Pg. 2434 Sect. 3.3.2, “Although Hyperloop's maximum speed is theoretically 1,220 km/hour, the operational plan described here puts this figure at 850 km/hour. A sufficiently high speed, which does not rigidify the physical-technical boundary conditions of the system as much” [Figure 2 shows a physical layout of the European Hyperloop Transport Network on a map of Europe and representing the scheme for hyperloop stations as the nodes of the map with the added radii of curvature used to run the simulation as reproduced from Gago Figure 2, e.g., generating a real-world map; and generating based on the first physical layout, a second physical layout, the second physical layout being associated with the real-world map]. Pg. 2430 Sect. 2, “Today, the simulation possibilities in multiple fields allow, for example, to emulate the design characteristics of transport networks using artificial intelligence algorithms. Through specific commercial software, it is also possible to emulate the annual operation of the rolling stock linked to these networks” [e.g., at the processor]. Further see Sect. 2-3 The examiner has interpreted that displaying European Hyperloop Transport Network in a real map of Europe and representing the scheme for hyperloop stations as the nodes of the map for conducting a simulation of the speed of the Hyperloop using simulation commercial software and artificial intelligence algorithms to emulated the design characteristics of transport networks as generating, at the processor, a real-world map; and generating, at the processor and based on the first physical layout, a second physical layout, the second physical layout being associated with the real-world map.)
PNG
media_image3.png
633
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Curvature radii for a European Hyperloop Network
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “generating, at the processor, a real-world map; and generating, at the processor and based on the first physical layout, a second physical layout, the second physical layout being associated with the real-world map” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Gago, into that of Borges because this modification of generating a physical layout of hyperloop network for the advantageous purpose of projecting a reasonable plan of operations (Gago Pg. 2430-2431 Sect. 2). Further motivation to combine be that Borges and Gago are analogous art to the current claim directed to modeling of hyperloop networks.
As per claim 8, Borges teaches “wherein the first alignment data comprises construction-based constraints, operational-based constraints, geographic-based constraints, legal-based constraints, ingress geometry, egress geometry, ingress grade, egress grade, horizontal spacing, vertical spacing, geometric entity types, or a combination thereof.” (Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “The inputs to the microscopic model include characteristics of the capsule (e.g. length, mass, tractive effort speed curve) as well as the infrastructure (e.g. track length, gradient, curvature radii)” [wherein the first alignment data comprises horizontal spacing and vertical spacing]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that inputting into the model infrastructure data such as track length, gradient, curvature radii as wherein the first alignment data comprises horizontal spacing and vertical spacing.)
As per claim 9, Borges teaches “wherein the first portal configuration parameters comprise portal ingress parameters, arrival queue parameters, emergency path parameters, branch ingress queue parameters, branch parameters, docking bay parameters, arrival stable parameters, emergency stable parameters, branch stable parameters, stabling egress queue parameters, branch egress queue parameters, portal egress parameters, tube parameters, or a combination thereof.” (Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “Capacity is here assessed in terms of the minimum time headway that can be safely allowed between two consecutive pods for each of the following system configurations which constitute an input to the model:… Station layout: for the operational scenarios with stops, the capacity is assessed for the case where intermediate stations have one single airlock but also when an airlock for each pod is available, in which case pods can load/unload customers at the same time” [e.g., wherein the first portal configuration parameters comprise portal ingress parameters and arrival queue parameters]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that inputting to the EGTRAIN simulation model where stations have either a single airlock is available for the pods or an airlock for each pod is available as wherein the first portal configuration parameters comprise portal ingress parameters and arrival queue parameters.)
Re Claim 10, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Borges teaches “A design system configured to design a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal, the design system comprising: a memory; a processor”. (Pg. 12613, Sect. II, “A two-step methodological framework has been set up (Fig. 1) to assess the Hyperloop transport capacity for several pod manoeuvres on different infrastructure layouts, signalling and switching technologies as well as station configurations” [a design system configured to design a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal]. Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “With the modifications described above, the EGTRAIN simulation model was able to provide more accurate pod dynamics” [e.g., the design system comprising: a memory: a memory; a processor]. Further Sect. 1-2. The examiner has interpreted that creating a methodological framework to assess a Hyperloop transport capacity for different layouts and station configurations using a EGTRAIN simulation model as a design system configured to design a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal, the design system comprising: a memory; a processor.)
Re Claim 11, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 12, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 15, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6,
Re Claim 16, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re Claim 17, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Re Claim 18, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
Re Claim 19, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, “A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer.” (Pg. 12613, Sect. II, “A two-step methodological framework has been set up (Fig. 1) to assess the Hyperloop transport capacity for several pod manoeuvres on different infrastructure layouts, signalling and switching technologies as well as station configurations”. Pg. 12614 Sect. 2, “With the modifications described above, the EGTRAIN simulation model was able to provide more accurate pod dynamics” [e.g., A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer]. Further Sect. 1-2. The examiner has interpreted that creating a two-step methodological framework to assess a Hyperloop transport capacity for different layouts and station configurations for several pod manoeuvres using a EGTRAIN simulation model as a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer.)
Re Claim 20, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claims 2 and 3. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 and 3.
Claim 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Borges, Gago, and Jeker as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sushma, M. B., and Avijit Maji. “A modified motion planning algorithm for horizontal highway alignment development.” Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 35, no. 8 (2020): 818-831 [herein “Sushma”].
As per claim 4, Borges, Gago, and Jeker do not specifically teach “wherein the optimizing is performed using curvature fitting, geometric alignment, genetic-algorithm alignment, or a combination thereof.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely generating a layout for a transportation system, Sushma teaches “wherein the optimizing is performed using curvature fitting, geometric alignment, genetic-algorithm alignment, or a combination thereof.” (Pg. 4, Sect. 1, “The proposed modified motion planning algorithm can identify a suitable number of intermediate HPIs [horizontal points of intersection] at appropriate locations with optimally fitted curve radius for a new horizontal alignment without any manual intervention” [wherein the optimizing is performed using curvature fitting]. Pg. 8 Sect. 4, “The proposed algorithm was used in developing horizontal alignments for a study area located in Brookeville, Montgomery County of Maryland State, USA. Earlier, Maji and Jha (2009, 2011b) used the same study area to develop alignments using GA[genetic-algorithm]-based approach” [wherein the optimizing is performed using genetic-algorithm]. Pg. 4 Sect. 2, “In alignment design, horizontal curve geometry, particularly its radius, is an important element for safety evaluation (Maji, Sil, & Tyagi, 2018; Sil, Maji, Nama, & Maurya, 2019). It provides a smooth transition between the two successive tangent sections while meeting the geometric design guidlines” [wherein the optimizing is performed using geometric alignment]. Further see Sect. 1-4. The examiner has interpreted that generating a horizontal alignment using optimally fitted curve radius, GA-based approach, and the horizontal curve geometry as wherein the optimizing is performed using curvature fitting, geometric alignment, and genetic-algorithm alignment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “optimizing, at the processor, the first logical layout, the first physical layout, or a combination thereof, the optimizing resulting in a second plurality of portal configuration parameters” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sushma, into that of Borges, Gago, and Jeker because this modification of optimizing the physical layout of hyperloop network using curve fitting for the advantageous purpose of developing an efficient alignment of the layout while avoiding restricted or prohibited areas (Sushma Pg. 13 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Borges, Gago, Jeker, and Sushma are analogous art to the current claim directed to generating a layout for a transportation system.
As per claim 5, Borges, Gago, and Jeker do not specifically teach “wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves, the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data.”
However, Sushma teaches “wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves, the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data.” (Pg. 7 Sect. 3, “The path-tree connecting the 𝑃start and 𝑃end is fitted with horizontal curves that minimize Equation (2) and meet Equations (4) and (5)” [wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves]. Pg. 7 Sect. 3, “This optimization process considers the cost presented in Equation (2) as the objective function. In each iteration, the radius values at each HPI are obtained from Equation (9). These radii are fitted to the tangent sections, and then the objective function is evaluated. Generally, for an individual curve, the location-dependent cost and environmental impact behave like a unimodal function with respect to the curve radius” [the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data]. Further see Sect. 3. The examiner has interpreted that the optimization process that fits curves to path while considering the environmental impact and the location as wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves, the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the curvature fitting generates a plurality of curves, the plurality of curves being based on the design goals and the first alignment data” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sushma, into that of Borges, Gago, and Jeker because this modification of optimizing the physical layout of hyperloop network using curve fitting for the advantageous purpose of developing an efficient alignment of the layout while avoiding restricted or prohibited areas as well as lowering cost and environmental impact (Sushma Pg. 13 Sect. 5 and Pg. 7 Sect. 3, respectively). Further motivation to combine be that Borges, Gago, Jeker, and Sushma are analogous art to the current claim directed to generating a layout for a transportation system.
Re Claim 13, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 14, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that the objection to the specification for the trademark terms should not be objected to since the terms have generic placeholders (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 10).
MPEP § 608.01(v) recites “Although the use of marks having definite meanings is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected. Marks should be identified by capitalizing each letter of the mark (in the case of word or letter marks) or otherwise indicating the description of the mark (in the case of marks in the form of a symbol or device or other nontextual form). Every effort should be made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as marks” (emphasis added).
While the applicant is correct that the terms are accompanied by their respective generic terminology, the terms do not have a description of the mark in the form of a symbol such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. As such, every effort has not been made to acknowledge the validity of the trademark or terms using the properly symbol.
Therefore, the examiner has properly objected to the specification for failing to provide the symbol for the provided trade names or marks.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mental processes as they are not performed through manual analysis or require the use of a computer. (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-12).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”, and “in evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. For example, the limitation of amended claim 1 “generating, based on the first portal configuration parameters, a first logical layout of the hyperloop portal, the first logical layout of the hyperloop portal representing the relationships between the first portal configuration parameters” has been identified as a mental process since a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper a logical layout that represents how a hyperloop transportation system connects two stations through a path such as station A is 5 miles from station B through a curve path navigation around an object in a terrain. There is no limitation in the claims that requires the number of parameters or constraints to include one thousand in number as argued by the applicant. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the number of “parameters” for the logical layout is two in number, e.g., two stations. For the limitation of “generating, based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal; and rendering a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time” has been identified as a mental process since a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper physical layout that represents the logical layout of the stations and the path between two stations on representation of a map in less than an hour. The claims nor the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the relative terminology of “substantially in real-time”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this terms has been interpreted as under an hour, consist with what a person one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably decern for the term. Thus, a person can perform the limitation of generating a physical layout substantially in real-time as recited by the claim limitation and the applicant is merely claiming the invention be performed by a computer.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental concept as provided in the rejection above is proper under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite improvements to another technology or technical field (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 13-15).
MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” MPEP § 2106.04(I) “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea")”; MPEP § 2106.05(a) recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”; MPEP § 2106.05(a) also recites “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality" BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”; and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application” (emphasis added).
The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. The additional elements have been identified as follows”
“at a processor”, “A design system configured to design a transportation network comprising a hyperloop portal, the design system comprising: a memory; a processor”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. With exception of the data gathering steps, since a person can perform the limitations mentally without the use of a computer, the applicant is merely claiming the invention be performed by a computer. The computer is merely a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “receiving, at a processor, first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters representing the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters” and “receiving, at the processor, first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC). At recited in Step 2B, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Regardless of what data is being received or what structure it provides, the limitations are merely data gathering activities and the evidence for data gathering being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and above in the rejection.
Lastly, if the limitation of “rendering, at the processor, a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time” were to not be interpreted as an mental process, it similarly would be merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, there are no additional element limitations in the independent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology as listed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the examiner has also provided the rational for the dependent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process or a mathematical concept in the rejection above. With the exception of the additional element limitations in the dependent claims which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities, there are no additional limitations in the dependent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes and limitations that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activities.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claim 1 because cited references fail to teach “receiving, at a processor, first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters representing with the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 15-17).
MPEP § 2143.03 recites “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As provided above in rejection to claim 1, Borges discloses “receiving, at a processor, first portal configuration parameters, the first portal configuration parameters representing with the hyperloop portal in a logical layout such that varied instances of alignment data satisfy a hyperloop portal design specified by the portal configuration parameters” as inputting to the EGTRAIN simulation model where stations have either a single airlock is available for the pods or an airlock for each pod is available and defining an operation scenario of pods stopping in a varying number of chambers/airlocks for the pods to embark passengers in a layout. Airlocks for the pods are portal configuration parameters. There mere argument that in this embodiment of parameters of Borges may be binary (e.g., equal to one or two airlocks) do not negate the fact that they are still parameters. Further the claim does not provide an further limitations on the type of the first portal configuration parameters. However, claim 9 does require the first portal configuration parameters to comprise, e.g., portal ingress parameters and arrival queue parameters. A parameter for the number of airlocks provides a number of arriving or departing chambers are portal ingress parameters and arrival queue parameters. Further, different types of manoeuvres and infrastructure create operational scenarios for different layouts. Thus, the claimed limitation is taught. Additional citations from the cited references have been added to this mapping in the rejection above for the amended limitation.
Therefore, this amended limitation of the amended claim 1 is provided by Borges. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claim 1 because cited references fail to teach “receiving, at the processor, first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 15-17).
MPEP § 2143.03 recites “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As provided above in rejection to claim 1, Borges discloses “receiving, at the processor, first alignment data that is based on physical constraints of the hyperloop portal design represented logically by the portal configuration parameters” as inputting into the model infrastructure data such as track length, gradient, curvature radii to determine an operation scenario having a infrastructure layout and a manoeuvre. The claim does not provide an further limitations on the type of the alignment data. However, claim 9 does require the alignment data to comprise, e.g., horizontal spacing or vertical spacing. A parameter for track length, gradient, and curvature radii are horizontal spacing and vertical spacing. These parameters provide the layout and operation scenario to meet the physical specification of the design. Thus, the claimed limitation is taught.
Therefore, this amended limitation of the amended claim 1 is provided by Borges. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claim 1 because cited references fail to teach “generating, at the processor and based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 17-18).
MPEP § 2143.03 recites “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As provided above in rejection to claim 1, Gago discloses “generating, at the processor and based on the first logical layout and further based on the first alignment data, a first physical layout of the hyperloop portal” as that connecting the city lines through the flattest areas to create a map of the area with the European Hyperloop Transport Network having a scheme for hyperloop stations using simulation commercial software and artificial intelligence algorithms to emulated the design characteristics of transport networks. Firstly, table 1 of Gago shows a list of the transport line names with distances, as connections, that connect cities (network nodes) in Europe. The distance between nodes is a portal configuration parameter, since it is the distance between the portal egress and ingress (e.g., portal egress and ingress parameters from Claim 9). Therefore, this table is a first logical layout. Secondly, the alignment data of Gago can be seen a function of the slope and flat areas (e.g. geographic-based constraints from Claim 8) used to create a hyperloop network map, e.g., a physical layout. Third, Fig. 4 of Gago shows the physical layout of the hyperloop station, e.g., the physical layout of the hyperloop portal. And finally, Gao teaches the entire hyperloop network is generated is using the connections and the stations/portals. Therefore, when combined, the claimed limitation is taught.
Therefore, this amended limitation of the amended claim 1 is provided by Gago. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 11, filed March 31, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, signals per se, have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the amendment to claims 19-20 now being directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, e.g., an article of manufacture. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 17, filed March 31, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to the cited references failing to teach the new limitation of “rendering, at the processor, a visualization of the first physical layout substantially in real-time”, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims, as necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fernández Gago, José Ángel, and Federico Collado Pérez-Seoane. "Methodology for the characterisation of linear rail transport infrastructures with the machine learning technique and their application in a hyperloop network." Urban Rail Transit 7, no. 3 (2021): 159-176 teaches generating a layout solution for a hyperloop network in near real-time.
Stryhunivska, Olena, Katarzyna Gdowska, and Rafał Rumin. "A concept of integration of a vactrain underground station with the solidarity transport hub Poland." Energies 13, no. 21 (2020): 5737 teaches an analysis of a designed underground station infrastructure for vacuum tube high-speed trains for the planned mega transport hub
An, Bang, Sikai Liu, and Shaoke Liu. "Simulation of ground rheostatic braking in mid-to-low speed maglev train." In The 26th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2014 CCDC), pp. 4702-4706. IEEE, 2014 teaches simulating a model of traction between mid-to-low speed maglev train in real-time
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.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights