DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Creissels et al. first embodiment (FR 2961776 A1, FIG. 1, 2, & 4-12 herein after referred to as Creissels).
Regarding claim 1 Creissels teaches a control method for controlling a vehicle (FIG. 1: 15) moving on a track (FIG. 1: 11), the vehicle comprising rollers intended for contact on at least one support defining the track (FIG. 1: 16-19), a floor (FIG. 1: 25) intended for transporting a load (suitable for this purpose), said floor cooperating with the rollers through a set of suspensions (FIG. 10-12: 31), the set of suspensions comprising at least one suspension, the at least one suspension being controlled by at least one force setpoint defining the force exerted by the at least one suspension on the floor (FIG. 10-12: depicted with arrows), the method being implemented by a control command system (translation page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1) and comprising the following steps: a. collection of a pitch parameter of the floor (FIG. 8: 27 & 28; page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure), representative of the pitch rotational acceleration of the floor (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure); b. determination of a longitudinal correction command intended to modify the at least one force setpoint (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure); c. application of the longitudinal correction command to the set of suspensions (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure), the longitudinal correction command being representative of a longitudinal force setpoint differential (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure), said longitudinal differential being applied between two suspensions associated respectively with two rollers disposed longitudinally in the displacement direction of the vehicle (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure), the differential being dependent on the distance between the two rollers and on the pitch parameter of the floor (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure).
Regarding claim 2 Creissels teaches the step of collecting a pitch parameter of the floor comprises collecting the value and the sign of the value of the pitch parameter of the floor (FIG. 8: useind 27 & 28; page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure), the control method comprising a step of comparing the value of the pitch parameter of the floor with a predetermined comfort pitch value (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure; predetermined pitch value being flat), the step of determining a longitudinal correction command being implemented in the case where the value of the pitch parameter of the floor is greater than the comfort pitch value (page 3, paragraph 3-page 4, paragraph 1; behavior allowed for by structure).
Regarding claim 5 Creissels teaches the following steps: a. collection of a crushing parameter of the load, representative of the acceleration of the floor along an axis substantially perpendicular to the floor (determined as part of keeping the laser level by applying force to the dampers); b. determination of a normal correction command intended to modify the at least one force setpoint (part of keeping the laser level); c. Application of the normal correction command to the set of suspensions, the vertical correction command being intended to drive the suspensions so as to bring back the crushing parameter of the load in one direction and with an intensity substantially close to the gravitational acceleration (FIG. 10-12: this action is depicted and is part of maintaining the level ride height).
Regarding claim 6 Creissels teaches the step of collecting a crushing parameter of the load comprises collecting the value and the sign of the value of the crushing parameter of load (part of the above described process), the control method comprising a step of comparing the value of the crushing parameter of the load with a predetermined comfort normal acceleration value (part of keeping the laser level), the step of determining a normal correction command being implemented in the case where the crushing parameter value of the load is greater than the comfort normal acceleration value (FIG. 10-12: this action is depicted and is part of maintaining the level ride height).
Regarding claim 7 Creissels teaches the following steps: a. collection of a roll parameter of the floor, representative of the roll rotational acceleration of the floor (FIG. 5 & 6: depicted using pendulum 24; page 3, paragraph 1); b. determination of a lateral correction command intended to modify the at least one force setpoint (FIG. 6: using 23; page 3, paragraph 1); c. application of the lateral correction command to the set of suspensions (FIG. 6: depicted; page 3, paragraph 1), the lateral correction command being representative of a force setpoint lateral differential, said lateral differential being applied between two suspensions associated respectively with two rollers disposed laterally with respect to the displacement direction of the vehicle and being dependent on the distance between the two rollers and on the roll parameter of the floor (FIG. 6: depicted; page 3, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8 Creissels teaches the step of collecting a roll parameter of the floor comprises collecting the value and the sign of the value of the roll parameter of the floor (page 3, paragraph 1), the control method comprising a step of comparing the value of the roll parameter of the floor with a predetermined comfort roll value (page 3, paragraph 1), the step of determining a lateral correction command being implemented in the case where the value of the roll parameter of the floor is greater than the comfort roll value (page 3, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 9 Creissels teaches a step of measuring the mass of the load and its distribution in the vehicle (result of applying forces to the dampers to keep the laser level), the longitudinal differential and/or the lateral differential being dependent on the mass of the load and on the distribution of the mass in the vehicle (result of applying forces to the dampers to keep the laser level).
Regarding claim 10 Creissels teaches the following steps: a. measurement of the position of each of the rollers with respect to the vehicle (page 4, paragraphs 1 & 2); b. in the case where the position of a roller is outside a predetermined target interval, determination of a return command intended to modify the at least one force setpoint (page 4, paragraph 2; “the shock absorber 31 returns to its normal position”); c. application of the return command to the set of suspensions so as to bring the position of each of the rollers back to the target interval (page 4, paragraphs 1 & 2; part of predicting and regulating roller travel with well known shock absorbers).
Regarding claim 11 Creissels teaches the step of determining a return command comprises a step of transmitting a speed reduction instruction to an external system for controlling the displacement speed of the vehicle, with the aim of reducing the displacement speed of the vehicle (if the damper has extended too far down part of the return command would involve reducing downward displacement speed).
Regarding claim 15 Creissels teaches an installation for transporting a load (FIG. 1: 15) comprising a support comprising at least two stretched cables (FIG. 2: 11 & 12) extending between at least two pylons (FIG. 4: 13) so as to form a track on which a vehicle travels (FIG. 4: depicted); the vehicle comprising rollers intended for contact on the support (FIG. 1 & 2: 16-19), a floor (FIG. 1: 25) intended for transporting the load (FIG. 1: depicted), said floor cooperating with the rollers through a set of suspensions (FIG. 10-12: 31), the set of suspensions having a travel (FIG. 10-12: depicted) and being controlled by at least one force setpoint defining the force exerted by each of the rollers on the floor (see claim 1) and a control command system configured to drive the set of suspensions by a control method according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 16 Creissels teaches that the transported load comprises people (title).
Regarding claim 17 Creissels teaches that the control command system comprises a kinematic measurement device configured to measure kinematic data of the floor of the vehicle, the kinematic measurement device being an inertial unit (FIG. 1 & 2: 24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 4, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creissels et al. first embodiment (FR 2961776 A1, FIG. 1, 2, & 4-12 herein after referred to as Creissels).
Regarding claim 3 Creissels does not explicitly teach the following steps: a. collection of an acceleration parameter on the track, representative of the acceleration of the floor longitudinally in the displacement direction of the vehicle; b. modification of the longitudinal differential taking into account the acceleration parameter on the track.
However, official notice is taken that acceleration sensors are commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acceleration sensors in all directions so as to detect unusual movement and warn for trouble such as strong winds. As a result of the combination the structure would allow for step b as claimed and would be motivated to do so to predict and regulate roller travel (Creissels, page 4, paragraph 1: “electronic systems for predicting and regulating roller travel”).
Regarding claim 4 Creissels as modified above teaches that the step of collecting an acceleration parameter on the track comprises collecting the value and the sign of the value of the acceleration parameter on the track (result of above acceleration sensors), the control method comprising a step of comparing the value of the acceleration parameter on the track with a predetermined comfort floor acceleration value (allowed for by structure), the step of modifying the longitudinal differential being implemented in the case where the acceleration parameter value on the track is greater than the comfort floor acceleration value (allowed for by structure).
Regarding claim 18 Creissels does not explicitly teach that each suspension of the set of suspensions has a travel of between 1.5 and 3.0m, merely teaching that the travel is “very large” (page 2, paragraph 2). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a travel of between 1.5 and 3.0m, so as to achieve an optimal ride comfort, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creissels et al. first embodiment (FR 2961776 A1, FIG. 1, 2, & 4-12 herein after referred to as Creissels) in view of Creissels et al. second embodiment (FR 2961776 A1, FIG. 3 herein after referred to as Creissels second embodiment)
Regarding claim 12 Creissels teaches that the track comprises a plurality of track sections (FIG. 4: track sections divided by height and angle, i.e. trough sections, peak sections, rising sections, & falling sections) defined by a section type and wherein the control command system comprises a position sensor (FIG. 7-9: 27 & 28), the control method comprising the following steps a. measurement of the position of the vehicle on the track (part of the leveling system); b. determination of a track section and of a section type corresponding to the position of the vehicle on the track (determined as part of raising and lowering the dampers); but does not teach c. modification of the comfort pitch value, the comfort floor acceleration value, the comfort normal acceleration value and the target interval in accordance with the section type.
However, Creissels second embodiment also teaches a functional vehicle without a ride height corrector. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively disabled the ride height corrector during certain track sections (i.e. when at the peak) in order to reduce energy usage. This would modify all of the above values and intervals by disabling them.
Regarding claim 13 Creissels as modified above teaches that the comfort pitch value, the comfort floor acceleration value, the comfort normal acceleration value, and the target interval evolved in accordance with the state of the track (broadest reasonable interpretation included being disabled and enabled as above).
Regarding claim 14 Creissels as modified above teaches a step of collecting shape data of the track, representative of the shape of the traveling track extending upstream (gets the shape of the track upstream of the rear dampers by having forward dampers) and a step of modifying the comfort pitch value and/or the comfort floor acceleration value and/or the comfort normal acceleration value and/or the target interval in accordance with the shape of the track (target interval always changes with the height of the track).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creissels et al. first embodiment (FR 2961776 A1, FIG. 1, 2, & 4-12 herein after referred to as Creissels) in view of Dehne et al. (US 4984523 A, herein after referred to as Dehne).
Regarding claim 19 Creissels does not explicitly teach that the vehicle is self-propelled. However, Dehne does teach the use of a self-propelled vehicle (title, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the vehicle of Creissels self-propelled in order to allow free and easy movement of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
The argument that Creissels does not teach collection of a pitch rotational acceleration represented by a parameter is not persuasive. FIG. 4 of Creissels, when compared with FIG. 3, clearly shows the pitch of the vehicle being carefully controlled, something achievable only with pitch angle detection. Any detector of pitch angle is also a detector of pitch acceleration by comparing multiple datapoints across time. The laser & associated structure cited in the non-final office action mailed 11/06/2025 is functional as a pitch rotational acceleration detector as claimed, and furthermore Creissels is explicitly clear that the inclinometer 24 functions to collect a pitch parameter as claimed, see specifically the last 4 lines of page 2 and the first 7 lines of page 3 of the translation mailed on 11/06/2025.
The argument that the comfortable position claimed is not taught by the prior art is not persuasive because the perfectly level position of Creissels may be considered comfortable. It is appreciated how the instant invention does teach a more comfortable position, keeping the acceleration felt by the load substantially perpendicular to the floor, however a) Creissels level position is in line with the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase, b) at low speeds Creissels’ level position would also keep the acceleration felt by the load substantially perpendicular to the floor, and c) the description that “the comfortable position may correspond to…” (emphasis added) allows for other comfortable positions. Additional limitations to the claims are likely needed to differentiate the instant invention’s comfortable position over the prior art.
It is noted that the rejection for lack of clarity has been corrected. This is appreciated.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J Morano IV can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights