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 § 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) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200207377 to Schuhholz et al. (“Schuhholz”) in view of US 20240001974 to Lucisano et al. (“Lucisano”).
Regarding claim 1, Schuhholz discloses a self-propelled railcar comprising:
a structure (e.g. see Fig. 1);
at least one bogie attached to the structure, the bogie having at least one powered axle (e.g. see Fig. 1, [0062]);
a sensor suite, the sensor suite comprising a processor and a plurality of sensors [0091];
a propulsion motor (e.g. [0078]); and
an energy storage system, the energy storage system comprising a controller and a power source ([e.g. [0091],
wherein the controller provides energy from the power source to the propulsion motor to the powered axle in a predetermined manner to control movement of the self-propelled railcar (e.g. [0098] – [0100]);
further comprising a coupling assembly (e.g. see [0093], [0115]);
wherein the coupling assembly is autonomously operated by the controller (e.g. see [0098] - [0100], [0105]);
wherein the controller operates autonomously to control movement of the self-propelled railcar (e.g. see Abstract; [0110].
However, Schuhholz lacks details of the actual coupling assembly to the extent of disclosing autonomously position[ing] and coup[ling] of the cars to one another using information from the sensor suite. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Lucisano discloses such (see e.g. [0055], particularly sentence beginning “following a pre-coupling” referencing the use of connecting coupling units via sensor system). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Lucisano with the motivation of reducing manpower requirements for connecting railcars.
Regarding claim 2 and 19 and 20, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the energy storage system is off-board (e.g. see [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 2, the off-board energy storage system further comprising: a vehicle coupled to the structure; at least one bogie attached to the vehicle, the bogie having at least one powered axle; and a propulsion motor (e.g. see [0115]).
Regarding claim 5, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller receives commands from a remote source and controls movement of the self-propelled railcar in conformance with said commands (e.g. see [0100]).
Regarding claim 6, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is manually operated (e.g. see [0100]).
Regarding claim 8, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 7, wherein the controller operates the coupling assembly in accordance with commands received from a remote source (e.g. see [0100], [0105]).
Regarding claim 10, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, the off-board energy storage system further comprising: a secondary power source, wherein the controller provides energy from the secondary power source to the propulsion motor to the powered axle of the at least one bogie attached to the vehicle in a predetermined manner to control movement of the vehicle (e.g. see [0062]-[0069], [0098]).
Regarding claim 11, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 10, wherein the secondary power source comprises a battery (e.g. see [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor of the sensor suite gathers information received from the plurality of sensors and sends said information to the controller (e.g. see [0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 13, wherein the controller operates autonomously to control movement of the self-propelled railcar in accordance with the information received from the processor of the sensor suite (e.g. see [0091] while noting “in accordance with” provides minimal narrowing / nexus of the fact that there is information processed and a controller).
Regarding claim 15, Schuhholz discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 14, wherein the controller sends information to a remote source, and wherein the controller receives commands from the remote source and controls movement of the self-propelled railcar in conformance with said commands (e.g. see [0098]-[0100]). Schuhholz does not explicitly state that said information as indicated in claim 14 is the information received from the sensor suite sent to a remote source. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to use said information, in combination with and similarly used as the other information, with the motivation of executing commands based on all available data collected that impacts power use / capabilities.
Regarding claim 16, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power source comprises a battery (e.g. see [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 15, wherein the battery is lithium titanate oxide (e.g. see [0067]).
**Note, claims 19 and 20 were addressed above with claim 2**
Regarding claim 21, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller communicates with at least one of the processor, the sensor suite, a remote source, or another self-propelled railcar (e.g. see [0061] – [0064] of Lucisano). It does not appear that Lucisano explicitly discloses that the communication is wireless. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known for such communication to occur wirelessly, especially the communication with a remote source of monitoring the disclosed execution (see Lucisano, [0062]; also see MPEP 2144.03). Therefore, in view of Lucisano and the use of official notice it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate these features with the motivation of minimizing tripping hazards and other entanglement hazards that would otherwise be present for wired connections.
Regarding claim 22, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the self-propelled railcar is configured to form a platoon with at least one other self-propelled railcar via decentralized communication (e.g. see [0095]).
Regarding claim 23, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the off-board energy storage system is configured to allow replacement of the power source without taking the self- propelled railcar out of service, thereby increasing mechanical availability of the self-propelled railcar (e.g. see [0116], [00117] disclosing the powering while moving wherein said powering is at least indirectly from the off-board energy via energy storage means).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuhholz in view of Lucisano and in view of US 20210200213 to Gillett.
Regarding claim 12, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose the different types of sensors. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Gillett discloses such; namely that the plurality of sensors include front and rear cameras, radar, lidar, and ultrasonic obstacle detection and GPS and , adaptive speed controllers (see [0096] and [0062] and [0095]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Gillett with the motivation of maintaining adequate awareness of surrounding conditions thus enabling more informed decisions / commands.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuhholz in view of Lucisano and in view of US 20200070680 to Whaling et al. (“Whaling”).
Regarding claim 18, Schuhholz in view of Lucisano discloses the self-propelled railcar as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power source includes directed energy, drivetrain, and large capacitors (e.g. see [0060] – [0070]).
Schuhholz does not explicitly disclose a hydrogen drivetrain power source. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Whaling discloses such (see [0015]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Whaling with the motivation of enhancing versatility of power provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments have required a new ground a rejection. Otherwise, Applicant argues Gillett and Whaling are non-analogous art to the railcar field and there is no motivation to combine these teachings. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that these references are at least analogous to the problem being solved which relates to power charging. The motivation includes the desire to increase operational awareness of various parameters which yields safer operations and enhancing versatility of the equipment (as noted in the rejections).
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 SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights