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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1-16 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Claims contain outstanding 112(b) rejections. Claim objections remain after Applicant’s amendment. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: the second period amended into the claim should be removed since the period at the end of the claim was not crossed out.
Claim 9: “(in driving direction)” should be “in a driving direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-16 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, 3-9, 12 and 15-16 are directed to a process and a product, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a process claim and claims a process (“method of operating a tube transport system”) while then claiming a product (“a tube assembly” and the associated components) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent vested tubes" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim after reciting “an outer tube” and “one or more inner tubes” making it unclear which adjacent tubes are being referenced. Examiner recommends amending “adjacent tubes” to “the outer tube and the one or more inner tubes” to positively recite the annular space being between the inner and outer tubes. This rejection also applies to claim 13.
Claim 1 recites “via valves” within lines 20 and 24 after reciting “the tube assembly has one or more pressure valves or nozzles” making it unclear if the valves being recited are a separate component from the valves previously recited.
Claim 3 recites “a vehicle hull” within line 5 making it unclear which vehicle is being recited. Examiner recommends amending “a vehicle hull” to “a hull of the vehicle”.
Claim 3 recites the indefinite pronouns “them” and “they” within lines 6 and 7. Please replace with the nouns to which they refer. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the service compartment" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the entire second paragraph within claim 3 containing amendments is actually an amended addition into the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the housing", “the passenger compartment” and “the passenger seats”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electro-magnetic guidance and propulsion system" within lines 3, 5, 7and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the service compartment" within line 12 and “the complete section” within line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 10-12 and 14 are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al. (CN 108583590 A).
Regarding claim 13: Du discloses a tube transport systems comprising; a tube assembly (Fig.1) comprising; an outer tube (12; Fig.3); one or more inner tubes (11; Fig.1) received and held in the outer tube so that annular spaces are formed in-between the adjacent vested tubes (13; Fig.3); and a support structure for holding the outer tube (bottom of Fig.3); wherein the tube assembly has an inner wall surface defining an inner space for receiving and guiding a vehicle (2; Fig.3) along a path extending from a first end to an opposite second end of the tube assembly (Fig.1), wherein the tube assembly has one or more nozzles for removing gas particles from the inner space (16; Fig.2); and a vehicle has an outer wall surface defining an annular gap between the outer wall surface of the vehicle and the inner wall surface of the tube assembly (apparent from Fig.1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in independent claim 1.
More specifically, Examiner agrees with Applicant arguments regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 03/23/2026, pg.18), it would require an improper level of hindsight to combine the prior art with Du et al. (CN 108583590 A) to include all the limitations of claim 1 since doing so would change the principle of operation of the reference.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 13, that Du fails to disclose “support structure for holding the outer tube; wherein the tube assembly has an inner wall surface defining an inner space for receiving and guiding a vehicle along a path extending from a first end to an opposite second end of the tube assembly”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a high vacuum system, which prevents or limits the flow from the high-pressure zone in front of the vehicle to the low-pressure side behind the vehicle. This flow is then used to accumulate air inside the vehicle or to compress the air in front of the vehicle.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights