DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
INDEFINITENESS — “REAR DIFFERENTIAL TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES IN TRACK MEMBER SPACING IN BANKED TURNS” (CLAIMS 1–8)
The limitation “a rear wheel assembly with a rear differential to accommodate changes in track member spacing in banked turns” renders the metes and bounds unclear.
In particular, it is unclear what is meant by “changes in track member spacing” in the context of “banked turns,” and it is further unclear how a “rear differential” (typically understood as a mechanism that accommodates relative rotational speed differences between wheels/axles) “accommodate[s]” a change in spacing between track members. The claim does not specify any structure, kinematic relationship, or adjustment mechanism by which the rear differential interacts with or compensates for a change in track member spacing (e.g., lateral translation, pivoting, compliance, telescoping axle, variable gauge interface, etc.). As written, the limitation requires undue speculation as to (i) what “spacing” changes, (ii) whether the spacing change is intentional or incidental, (iii) whether the claimed “rear differential” is a conventional drivetrain differential, a different
INDEFINITENESS — “LEFT-SIDE WHEEL SET AND RIGHT-SIDE WHEEL SET ROTATE TOGETHER” (CLAIM 3)
Claim 3 recites, in substance, that “said left-side wheel set and said right-side wheel set rotate together during operation.” The phrase “rotate together” is ambiguous because it is unclear what rotation is being referenced and what mechanical relationship is required.
For example, it is unclear whether “rotate together” requires (i) that the left and right wheels rotate at the same angular velocity about their respective axles (which would be inconsistent with the presence of a differential for accommodating differing travel distances), (ii) that the left-side wheel set structure and right-side wheel set structure pivot/rotate together as an assembly relative to the chassis (e.g., yawing about a vertical axis, or rolling about a longitudinal axis), or (iii) that a motor/differential module rotates as a unit relative to a chassis frame. The claim does not provide sufficient structural context to ascertain the required relationship and thus does not provide reasonable certainty as to claim scope
INDEFINITENESS — “REAR WHEEL ASSEMBLY CONFIGURED FOR MOVEMENT IN ONLY TWO DIMENSIONS” (CLAIM 4) AND “FRONT WHEEL ASSEMBLY … MOVEMENT … IN THREE DIMENSIONS” (CLAIM 7)
Claim 4 recites that the rear wheel assembly is “configured for movement in only two dimensions.” Claim 7 recites that the front wheel assembly is “configured for movement … in three dimensions.” These “two dimensions/three dimensions” characterizations render the scope unclear because they do not specify the degrees of freedom with sufficient precision.
In particular, it is unclear whether “movement in only two dimensions” (and “movement in three dimensions”) refers to translation, rotation, or some combination; and it is unclear what reference frame is intended (vehicle-fixed axes, track-fixed axes, gravitational vertical, etc.). The claims do not identify which motions are permitted and which are constrained (e.g., vertical heave, lateral translation, longitudinal translation, yaw rotation, pitch rotation, roll rotation). Without specifying the actual degrees of freedom, the limitation does not provide objective boundaries as to the claimed mechanical configuration.
INDEFINITENESS — “ROTATE AS A UNIT ABOUT A CENTRAL AXIS POINT” (CLAIMS 5 AND 13)
Claims 5 and 13 recite, in substance, that a set of components “rotate as a unit about a central axis point.” The phrase “axis point” is internally unclear because an “axis” denotes a line about which rotation occurs, whereas a “point” denotes a location; the claim does not identify the axis direction, the component(s) relative to which rotation occurs, or the bearing/joint structure that defines the axis.
Additionally, the claims do not specify what kind of rotation is intended (e.g., yawing about a vertical axis to follow a curve, rolling about a longitudinal axis to match banking, or another rotation). As written, the limitation does not provide reasonable certainty as to the mechanical configuration required.
INDEFINITENESS — “FIRST AND SECOND ON-BOARD COMPUTERS MOUNTED IN EACH OF SAID FIRST AND SECOND DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC VEHICLES” (CLAIMS 9–16)
Claim(s) 9–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “providing first and second on-board computers mounted in each of said first and second driverless electric vehicles.” This language is ambiguous as to the number and placement of computers.
Specifically, it is unclear whether claim 9 requires (i) two on-board computers mounted in each vehicle (i.e., two per vehicle), or instead (ii) a first on-board computer mounted in the first vehicle and a second on-board computer mounted in the second vehicle (i.e., one per vehicle). The remainder of the claim then recites communication “between said command center and said on-board computers,” which depends on the unclear antecedent set.
Because the identity and placement of the “first and second on-board computers” is unclear, the method steps and communication relationships required by claims 9–16 are not reasonably certain.
INDEFINITENESS — “RADAR MODULE INTERFACE … FOR PROVIDING POWER TO … SAID DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC VEHICLES” (CLAIM 11) AND RELATED ARCHITECTURE CLARITY (CLAIMS 9–12)
Claim 11 recites that the “control board” includes a “radar module interface for providing power to and communication with said driverless electric vehicles.” It is unclear what it means for a “radar module interface” on a “control board” to provide “power to” the driverless electric vehicles themselves (as opposed to providing power to a radar module). The claim does not specify any power distribution path, coupling, or context that would make “providing power to … vehicles” reasonably certain (particularly where the broader claim framework is directed to wireless communications between a command center and vehicles). To the extent the intended meaning is that the control board provides power and communications to an external radar module (which then detects obstacles/vehicles), applicant should clarify the recipient of the “power” and “communication,” and the location of the radar module interface (command center versus vehicle-mounted).
INDEFINITENESS — “TRANSIT SAID INFORMATION” (CLAIM 15)
Claim 15 recites that the on-board computers “transit said information to said control board.” The term “transit” is unclear in the context of communications and renders the scope uncertain as to the required action. It is not reasonably clear whether “transit” is intended to mean “transmit,” “transfer,” “route,” “transport,” or some other operation, and the claim does not further define the term.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 WO 1994/023980 A1 (“Rail gripping vehicle”) (hereinafter “Reference 1”).
REFERENCE 2 US 5,595,121 (“Amusement ride and self propelled vehicle therefor”) (hereinafter “Reference 2”).
REFERENCE 3 US 2012/0055367 A1 (“Overhead Suspended Personal Transportation and Freight Delivery Land Transportation System”) (hereinafter “Reference 3”).
REFERENCE 4 US 10,621,796 (“System and method for real time wireless ECU monitoring”) (hereinafter “Reference 4”).
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.
======
CLAIMS 1–8: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The following is a detailed limitation-by-limitation analysis for each claim.
A transportation system for driverless vehicles, comprising: an elevated track comprising two track members disposed in parallel, and a plurality of cross members transversely disposed and coupled between said at least two track members; a driverless vehicle operatively coupled with said two track members and operable to traverse said elevated track; a plurality of banked turns, each banked turn having a designed speed associated with its radius of curvature; said driverless vehicle having a front wheel assembly having a plurality of top wheels configured to ride on associated track members, a plurality of bottom safety wheels configured to ride below said associated track members to account for vehicle speed and banked turn conditions, and a plurality of outer side wheels configured to position said front wheel assembly passively for banked turns; and said driverless vehicle having a rear wheel assembly with a rear differential to accommodate changes in track member spacing in banked turns; wherein said front wheel assembly and said rear wheel assembly are rigidly connected.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1
LIMITATION 1A: “A transportation system for driverless vehicles”
Reference 1 teaches a transportation arrangement employing a vehicle (e.g., vehicle 1 and/or vehicle 31) traveling on a guideway (guideway 2) supported on pillars (pillars 5), i.e., an elevated guideway system suitable for transporting a vehicle without a human driver actively steering the vehicle, because the vehicle’s interaction with the rails provides guidance and the disclosure describes a rail-guided vehicle arrangement (vehicle 1 on guideway 2; vehicle 31 with bogies 32). Reference 1 further teaches self-steering bogies (bogies 32) for negotiating turns, indicating vehicle guidance is achieved mechanically via the bogie/rail interaction rather than a human driver. (Reference 1: vehicle 1, guideway 2, pillars 5; vehicle 31; self-steering bogies 32; principal axle assembly 38.)
Reference 2 similarly teaches an amusement ride system employing a self-propelled vehicle (vehicle 16) traveling on an elevated track structure (backbone 10 supporting rails 14, 14’) with wheel sets (wheel set 26) that retain the vehicle on the track, and the vehicle is propelled/controlled without a driver steering the path, as guidance is provided by the rails and wheel arrangement. (Reference 2: vehicle 16; backbone 10; rails 14, 14’; wheel set 26.)
Accordingly, the combined teachings of References 1 and 2 evidence a transportation system for vehicles that are guided by the track/rail system rather than by a human driver.
LIMITATION 1B: “an elevated track comprising two track members disposed in parallel”
Reference 1 teaches an elevated guideway (guideway 2) having rails (rails 17) upon which the vehicle travels; these rails are arranged as parallel rails forming the track path. The rails (rails 17) include upper faces (upper faces 18) for supporting wheels and lower faces (lower faces 20) for gripping wheels, consistent with two track members disposed in parallel. (Reference 1: guideway 2; rails 17; upper faces 18; lower faces 20; pillars 5.)
Reference 2 teaches a track structure including load rails (load rails 14, 14’) forming a pair of rails on which load bearing wheels travel, i.e., two track members disposed in parallel. (Reference 2: load rails 14, 14’.)
Thus, the “two track members disposed in parallel” are taught by rails 17 (Reference 1) and/or rails 14, 14’ (Reference 2).
LIMITATION 1C: “and a plurality of cross members transversely disposed and coupled between said at least two track members”
Reference 2 teaches rail supports (rail supports 12) coupled between the rails (load rails 14, 14’), providing transverse support elements between the two rails, consistent with “cross members transversely disposed and coupled between” the track members. (Reference 2: rail supports 12; load rails 14, 14’.)
Reference 1 teaches the rails (rails 17) are part of a guideway structure (guideway 2). To the extent Reference 1 does not expressly emphasize transverse cross members, Reference 2 expressly teaches transverse rail supports between the rails and thus supplies this limitation in the combination.
LIMITATION 1D: “a driverless vehicle operatively coupled with said two track members and operable to traverse said elevated track”
Reference 1 teaches the vehicle (vehicle 1 and/or vehicle 31) is operatively coupled to the rails (rails 17) via wheel assemblies including wheels (wheels 6 and grip wheels 19) and/or via bogies (bogies 32) including drive wheels (drive wheels 43) that engage the rails/track surfaces. The vehicle is operable to traverse the elevated guideway (guideway 2) supported on pillars (pillars 5). (Reference 1: vehicle 1; guideway 2; pillars 5; bogie 7; wheels 6; gripping wheel assembly 9; grip wheels 19; vehicle 31; bogies 32; drive wheels 43.)
Reference 2 teaches the vehicle (vehicle 16) is coupled to the rails (load rails 14, 14’) by wheel set 26 (load bearing wheels 20, guide wheels 22, up-stop wheels 24) and traverses the track (backbone 10 with rail supports 12). (Reference 2: vehicle 16; wheel set 26; load bearing wheels 20; guide wheels 22; up-stop wheels 24; load rails 14, 14’; backbone 10.)
Accordingly, a vehicle coupled to the rails and operable to traverse the elevated track is taught.
LIMITATION 1E: “a plurality of banked turns, each banked turn having a designed speed associated with its radius of curvature”
Reference 2 teaches the track includes curves and “rolls” (i.e., track sections that rotate about a longitudinal axis), and such “rolls” in combination with curves correspond to banked turns, because a roll changes the vehicle orientation relative to gravity while the vehicle follows a curved path. Reference 2 explicitly teaches the track is provided with “horizontal, vertical and compound curves and rolls,” evidencing banked/rolled curved sections. (Reference 2: track with curves and rolls; backbone 10; rails 14, 14’.)
Further, for any banked curved track section having a radius of curvature, the selection of a suitable/target speed for comfortable and safe traversal is a known design relationship in guided-vehicle systems, and the “designed speed associated with radius of curvature” is an inherent design property of banked turns in systems where speed is controlled and turns are geometrically defined.
LIMITATION 1F: “said driverless vehicle having a front wheel assembly having a plurality of top wheels configured to ride on associated track members”
Reference 2 teaches wheel sets (wheel set 26) including load bearing wheels (load bearing wheels 20) that ride on the top surfaces of the load rails (load rails 14, 14’). Such load bearing wheels function as “top wheels configured to ride on associated track members.” (Reference 2: wheel set 26; load bearing wheels 20; load rails 14, 14’.)
Reference 1 similarly teaches wheels riding on upper faces (upper faces 18) of rails (rails 17) and/or drive wheels (drive wheels 43) supporting the vehicle on the rails/track. (Reference 1: rails 17; upper faces 18; wheels 6; drive wheels 43.)
Thus, the front wheel assembly top wheels are taught.
LIMITATION 1G: “a plurality of bottom safety wheels configured to ride below said associated track members to account for vehicle speed and banked turn conditions”
Reference 2 teaches up-stop wheels (up-stop wheels 24) positioned below the load rails (load rails 14, 14’) such that the vehicle is retained on the rails and prevented from lifting off under dynamic conditions (e.g., higher speed, curves/rolls). The up-stop wheels are expressly configured beneath the rails and function as “bottom safety wheels” that engage below the rails when needed due to dynamic conditions. (Reference 2: up-stop wheels 24; load rails 14, 14’.)
Reference 1 also teaches gripping wheel assembly (gripping wheel assembly 9) having grip wheels (grip wheels 19) engaging the lower faces (lower faces 20) of rails (rails 17). Although Reference 1 emphasizes active gripping for traction, such lower wheels also provide safety retention below the rails. (Reference 1: gripping wheel assembly 9; grip wheels 19; lower faces 20; rails 17.)
Accordingly, bottom wheels below the rails/track members are taught by up-stop wheels 24 and/or grip wheels 19.
LIMITATION 1H: “and a plurality of outer side wheels configured to position said front wheel assembly passively for banked turns”
Reference 2 teaches guide wheels (guide wheels 22) that engage laterally relative to the load rails (load rails 14, 14’) to maintain alignment of the wheel set 26 on the track. Such guide wheels function as side wheels that laterally position the wheel assembly without active steering actuation, including during curved/rolled (banked) sections. (Reference 2: guide wheels 22; wheel set 26; load rails 14, 14’.)
Therefore, the side wheels that position the wheel assembly passively are taught by guide wheels 22.
LIMITATION 1I: “said driverless vehicle having a rear wheel assembly with a rear differential to accommodate changes in track member spacing in banked turns”
Reference 1 teaches a drivetrain including a differential assembly (differential assembly 47) coupled to drive wheel axles (drive wheel axles 42) for drive wheels (drive wheels 43) in the principal axle assembly (principal axle assembly 38) of each bogie (bogie 32). The differential assembly enables accommodation of different wheel path demands during turns (e.g., inner vs. outer rail path length differences), thereby supporting guided travel through curved/banked segments while maintaining traction and minimizing binding. (Reference 1: bogie 32; principal axle assembly 38; drive wheels 43; drive wheel axles 42; differential assembly 47; motor 33.)
Thus, Reference 1 teaches the claimed “rear differential” in a wheel assembly used to traverse a rail guideway system and to accommodate turning dynamics.
LIMITATION 1J: “wherein said front wheel assembly and said rear wheel assembly are rigidly connected”
Reference 2 teaches the vehicle includes a body frame (body frame 18) supporting wheel sets (wheel set 26) along the vehicle length, indicating the front and rear wheel sets are connected by a rigid structural frame. (Reference 2: vehicle 16; body frame 18; wheel set 26.)
Reference 1 teaches the vehicle body (vehicle 31) is connected to bogies (bogies 32) via mechanical couplings (e.g., gear coupling 41) forming the structural relationship between the vehicle body and its running gear. (Reference 1: vehicle 31; bogies 32; gear coupling 41.)
Accordingly, rigid connection between front and rear wheel assemblies is taught by the structural vehicle frame arrangement.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to incorporate the rail-retention wheel architecture of Reference 2 (load bearing wheels 20, guide wheels 22, up-stop wheels 24 on load rails 14, 14’) into the elevated rail-guided vehicle system of Reference 1 (vehicle 1/31 on rails 17 of guideway 2 supported by pillars 5, including grip wheels 19 and a differential assembly 47) to improve safety and retention on the rails during curves/rolls/banked portions, reduce derailment risk, and provide passive lateral guidance (via guide wheels 22) while maintaining driven capability and turning accommodation (via differential assembly 47). This is a predictable use of known guided-rail wheel retention features (Reference 2) in another guided-rail transport system (Reference 1) to achieve the expected benefit of secure tracking and stable traversal through turns and dynamic conditions.
The transportation system according to claim 1, wherein said rear wheel assembly further comprises a plurality of top wheels configured to ride on associated track members.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 2
LIMITATION 2A: “The transportation system according to claim 1”
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 2B: “wherein said rear wheel assembly further comprises a plurality of top wheels configured to ride on associated track members”
Reference 1 teaches drive wheels (drive wheels 43) in the bogie (bogie 32) arranged to run on the rails/track surfaces, i.e., top wheels supporting the vehicle on the rails (rails 17; upper faces 18). (Reference 1: bogie 32; drive wheels 43; rails 17; upper faces 18.)
Reference 2 teaches load bearing wheels (load bearing wheels 20) riding on top of load rails (load rails 14, 14’) and the vehicle has multiple wheel sets along its length; applying the same wheel set arrangement at the rear is an expressly taught configuration (wheel set 26 appears as repeated sets). (Reference 2: load bearing wheels 20; load rails 14, 14’; wheel set 26.)
Accordingly, the rear wheel assembly including top wheels riding on the track members is taught.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 2)
It would have been obvious to provide top wheels in the rear wheel assembly as taught by Reference 1’s driven bogie arrangement (drive wheels 43 on rails 17) and/or by duplicating Reference 2’s load wheel arrangement (load bearing wheels 20 on rails 14, 14’) at both front and rear, because a guided rail vehicle requires load-bearing support at multiple locations to distribute weight, maintain stability, and maintain consistent rail engagement during travel through curves and varying track geometry.
The transportation system according to claim 2, wherein said rear wheel assembly comprises a left-side wheel set having top wheels, bottom safety wheels and outer side wheels and a right-side wheel set having top wheels, bottom safety wheels and outer side wheels, wherein said left-side wheel set and said right-side wheel set rotate together during operation of said driverless vehicle.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 3
LIMITATION 3A: “The transportation system according to claim 2”
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and incorporates the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Claim 3 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 3B: “rear wheel assembly comprises a left-side wheel set having top wheels, bottom safety wheels and outer side wheels and a right-side wheel set having top wheels, bottom safety wheels and outer side wheels”
Reference 2 teaches a wheel set (wheel set 26) including load bearing wheels (load bearing wheels 20), guide wheels (guide wheels 22), and up-stop wheels (up-stop wheels 24) arranged on each side of the vehicle relative to the pair of rails (load rails 14, 14’), thereby providing left-side and right-side wheel structures corresponding to “top wheels” (20), “outer side wheels” (22), and “bottom safety wheels” (24). (Reference 2: wheel set 26; load bearing wheels 20; guide wheels 22; up-stop wheels 24; load rails 14, 14’.)
Reference 1 also teaches wheel assemblies including upper-running wheels (e.g., wheels 6 and/or drive wheels 43) and lower-engaging wheels (grip wheels 19) on rails (rails 17) that are arranged on both sides to engage the pair of rails. (Reference 1: rails 17; wheels 6; grip wheels 19; drive wheels 43.)
Thus, the left-side and right-side wheel sets with top/bottom/side wheels are taught by the wheel arrangements of Reference 2 (and consistent with Reference 1’s engagement of both upper and lower rail faces).
LIMITATION 3C: “wherein said left-side wheel set and said right-side wheel set rotate together during operation of said driverless vehicle”
Reference 2 teaches the wheels of the wheel set 26 are mounted to the vehicle and roll together as the vehicle traverses the track, with paired wheel components operating together as a unit to allow travel along the rails (load rails 14, 14’). (Reference 2: wheel set 26; vehicle 16; rails 14, 14’.)
Reference 1 teaches the principal axle assembly (principal axle assembly 38) and associated wheel sets of the bogie (bogie 32) operate together as the bogie traverses the rail guideway, including driven wheels (drive wheels 43) associated with the differential assembly 47. (Reference 1: bogie 32; principal axle assembly 38; drive wheels 43; differential assembly 47.)
Accordingly, the left-side and right-side wheel sets operating/rotating together as part of the rear wheel assembly during vehicle operation is taught by the coordinated wheel set operation in the cited references.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 3)
It would have been obvious to provide symmetrical left and right wheel sets each including load/top wheels, lateral guide wheels, and lower safety/up-stop wheels, and to have these wheel sets operate together during travel, because symmetrical left/right guidance and retention reduces derailment risk, distributes load, and improves stability in turns, which are predictable benefits in guided-rail systems as evidenced by Reference 2’s multi-wheel retention arrangement and Reference 1’s bogie-based guided travel.
The transportation system according to claim 1, wherein said rear wheel assembly is configured for movement in only two dimensions.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 4
LIMITATION 4A: “The transportation system according to claim 1”
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 4B: “wherein said rear wheel assembly is configured for movement in only two dimensions”
Reference 1 teaches bogie motion relative to the vehicle body including controlled pivoting. For example, Reference 1 teaches each bogie (bogie 32) is mounted to the vehicle body (vehicle 31) via a coupling (gear coupling 41) that permits relative yaw movement about an axis (axis Y) and is arranged to accommodate relative pitch movement between the vehicle body and the bogie. Reference 1 further teaches pivoting about axis X for roll behavior. These teachings show the running gear can be constrained to specific degrees of freedom rather than full free motion. (Reference 1: bogie 32; vehicle 31; gear coupling 41; axis Y; axis X.)
In view of Reference 1’s teaching that the bogie/wheel assembly degrees of freedom are defined by the coupling and axes, it would have been obvious to constrain a rear wheel assembly to a limited subset of motions (e.g., two degrees of freedom such as yaw and vertical compliance, or yaw and roll) depending on the desired guided behavior, because limiting degrees of freedom is a known design choice to improve tracking stability and reduce unwanted oscillation in guided vehicles.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 4)
It would have been obvious to configure the rear wheel assembly with limited degrees of freedom (e.g., only the necessary degrees of freedom for guided tracking) to enhance stability and reduce complexity and wear, consistent with Reference 1’s teachings that bogie/vehicle couplings define permitted motions (gear coupling 41 about yaw axis Y and accommodating pitch; and roll behavior about axis X), and further consistent with guided-rail design practices where certain wheel assemblies are constrained to maintain reliable tracking through turns.
The transportation system according to claim 1, wherein said rear wheel assembly further comprises a rear axle and a rotatable motor assembly, wherein said rear differential, rear axle and rotatable motor assembly rotate as a unit about a central axis point.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 5
LIMITATION 5A: “The transportation system according to claim 1”
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 5B: “rear wheel assembly further comprises a rear axle and a rotatable motor assembly”
Reference 1 teaches a motor (motor 33) mounted to the principal axle assembly (principal axle assembly 38) of the bogie (bogie 32), and drive wheel axles (drive wheel axles 42) associated with drive wheels (drive wheels 43) and differential assembly (differential assembly 47). The drive wheel axles 42 correspond to an axle structure in the rear wheel assembly. (Reference 1: motor 33; bogie 32; principal axle assembly 38; drive wheel axles 42; drive wheels 43; differential assembly 47.)
LIMITATION 5C: “wherein said rear differential, rear axle and rotatable motor assembly rotate as a unit about a central axis point”
Reference 1 teaches the principal axle assembly (principal axle assembly 38) pivots about an axis (axis X) causing the vehicle to roll, and the motor (motor 33) is rigidly mounted to the principal axle assembly 38 such that it moves/rotates with that assembly. Reference 1 further teaches the differential assembly (differential assembly 47) is disposed at the leading end of the axle assembly 38 and is part of the same running gear. Accordingly, motor 33, the axle assembly including axles 42, and differential assembly 47 rotate/pivot together about axis X as a unit. (Reference 1: principal axle assembly 38; axis X; motor 33 rigidly mounted; differential assembly 47; drive wheel axles 42.)
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 5)
It would have been obvious to employ a rotatable/pivoting motor and axle/differential unit as taught by Reference 1 in a guided-rail vehicle system because allowing the motor/drivetrain to pivot with the wheel assembly enables better alignment and reduces mechanical stress during roll/yaw events through turns, improving traction and reducing wear. Such an arrangement is a predictable application of Reference 1’s pivoting axle assembly with rigidly mounted motor and differential.
The transportation system according to claim 1, wherein said front wheel assembly comprises a rotational bearing and a combined pivot with an axle arm to accommodate operation of said driverless vehicle through said banked turns.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 6
LIMITATION 6A: “The transportation system according to claim 1”
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 6B: “front wheel assembly comprises a rotational bearing and a combined pivot with an axle arm to accommodate operation … through said banked turns”
Reference 1 teaches the bogie (bogie 32) connection to the vehicle body (vehicle 31) via a coupling (gear coupling 41) that permits rotational movement (yaw) about an axis (axis Y) and accommodates pitch, which constitutes a bearing/coupling structure enabling rotation and pivoting of the wheel assembly relative to the body for negotiating turns. Reference 1 further teaches the bogie includes arms (arms 34) that position wheels and steering wheels (steering wheels 37, 37’) relative to the axle assembly 38, which corresponds to an “axle arm” structure supporting wheel positioning. (Reference 1: gear coupling 41; axis Y; arms 34; steering wheels 37, 37’; principal axle assembly 38; bogie 32.)
Reference 2 teaches wheel sets (wheel set 26) having multiple wheels arranged about the rails and the wheel sets operate through curved/rolled portions of track, which would include bearing and pivot arrangements for wheel rotation and tracking along the rails. (Reference 2: wheel set 26; load bearing wheels 20; guide wheels 22; up-stop wheels 24.)
Accordingly, the cited references teach wheel assemblies including rotation/pivot structures enabling operation through turns, and it would have been obvious to implement such rotation/pivot via known rotational bearing and pivot structures to accommodate banked turns in guided-rail vehicles.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 6)
It would have been obvious to provide a rotational bearing/pivot arrangement for the front wheel assembly to facilitate smooth negotiation of banked turns, because Reference 1 expressly teaches a coupling (gear coupling 41) that allows rotational and pivot motions of the bogie (bogie 32) relative to the vehicle body (vehicle 31), and because guided-rail systems predictably benefit from such bearings/pivots to reduce binding and improve tracking through turns.
The transportation system according to claim 1, wherein said front wheel assembly comprises a pivot with axle arm configured for movement of the front wheel assembly in three dimensions.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 7
LIMITATION 7A: “The transportation system according to claim 1”
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 7B: “front wheel assembly comprises a pivot with axle arm configured for movement … in three dimensions”
Reference 1 teaches a bogie (bogie 32) having multiple permitted relative motions: yaw about axis Y (via gear coupling 41), pitch accommodation (via the coupling arrangement), and roll behavior about axis X (via the pivoting principal axle assembly 38), which collectively evidences multi-axis (multi-dimensional) movement of the wheel assembly relative to the vehicle body for negotiating guideway geometry. Reference 1 also teaches arms (arms 34) supporting wheel/steering wheel arrangements relative to the axle assembly. (Reference 1: bogie 32; gear coupling 41; axis Y; pitch accommodation; axis X; principal axle assembly 38; arms 34.)
Accordingly, the cited reference teaches wheel assembly motion in multiple axes and would have made it obvious to configure a front wheel assembly pivot/axle-arm arrangement permitting multi-axis movement for banked turns and guideway irregularities.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 7)
It would have been obvious to provide a multi-axis pivoting front wheel assembly because Reference 1 teaches multi-axis bogie articulation (yaw about axis Y, roll about axis X, and pitch accommodation via coupling 41), which is used to negotiate turns and changing guideway geometry. Applying such articulation to the front wheel assembly is a predictable design choice to improve tracking and ride stability through banked turns.
The transportation system according to claim 1, wherein said front wheel assembly comprises a bearing set which provides for up and down movement of said driverless vehicle.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 8
LIMITATION 8A: “The transportation system according to claim 1”
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected on the same combination of references applied to claim 1 (Reference 1 in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 8B: “front wheel assembly comprises a bearing set which provides for up and down movement of said driverless vehicle”
Reference 1 teaches the wheel/rail engagement includes gripping wheel assemblies (gripping wheel assembly 9) and wheel assemblies (wheel assembly 8) with actuation (actuating lever 21 and cylinder 24) which implies controlled engagement and compliance, and the bogie-to-body coupling (gear coupling 41) accommodates pitch, which necessarily includes relative vertical displacement as the vehicle traverses guideway features. (Reference 1: gripping wheel assembly 9; wheel assembly 8; actuating lever 21; cylinder 24; gear coupling 41; pitch accommodation.)
Reference 2 teaches wheel sets (wheel set 26) with load wheels (20) and up-stop wheels (24) that allow the vehicle to remain captured on the rails while accommodating vertical loads and variations, which necessarily entails bearing-supported wheel rotation and vertical compliance in operation. (Reference 2: wheel set 26; load bearing wheels 20; up-stop wheels 24; rails 14, 14’.)
Accordingly, a bearing-supported wheel assembly permitting up/down motion under load is taught/indicated by the cited references.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 8)
It would have been obvious to include a bearing set enabling vertical compliance (up/down movement) because guided-rail vehicles encounter vertical dynamics (load transfer, track transitions, tolerances), and References 1 and 2 both teach wheel assemblies and couplings that accommodate vertical/pitch-related movement (Reference 1 coupling 41 and actuation 21/24; Reference 2 captured wheel set 26 with up-stop wheels 24), making such a bearing arrangement a predictable and routine design choice for reliable rail engagement and ride quality.
======
CLAIMS 9–16: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 3 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 (AND AS APPLICABLE, FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 1)
The following is a detailed limitation-by-limitation analysis for each claim.
A method of operating a transportation system with an elevated track having parallel track members and banked turns, comprising: providing a first driverless electric vehicle with an electric motor, operatively coupled with an elevated track having two track members disposed in parallel, said first driverless electric vehicle operable to traverse said elevated track; providing a second driverless electric vehicle with an electric motor, operatively coupled with said parallel track members, said second driverless electric vehicle operable to traverse said elevated track; providing a command center for monitoring and tracking performance of said first and second driverless electric vehicles, said command center comprising a control board and operable to track and control the speed of said first and second driverless electric vehicles; providing first and second on-board computers mounted in each of said first and second driverless electric vehicles, operable to determine vehicle velocity and position and to transmit and process signals to and from said control board; wherein said control board comprises a CAN bus interface for communicating with said electric motors, and a wireless communication module for wireless communication between said command center and said on-board computers.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9
LIMITATION 9A: “A method of operating a transportation system with an elevated track having parallel track members …”
Reference 3 teaches an overhead/elevated rail transportation system comprising vehicles moving “on a pair of overhead parallel steel rails that form a single track,” which corresponds to an elevated track having parallel track members. (Reference 3: pair of overhead parallel steel rails; track.)
LIMITATION 9B: “… and banked turns …”
Reference 2 teaches track sections having curves and “rolls,” evidencing rolled/banked curved sections in a guided track system. (Reference 2: curves and rolls; rails 14, 14’; backbone 10.)
Thus, the combination teaches an elevated track system having parallel track members and banked/rolled turns.
LIMITATION 9C: “providing a first driverless electric vehicle with an electric motor … operatively coupled with an elevated track having two track members disposed in parallel … operable to traverse said elevated track”
Reference 3 teaches vehicles that operate as a “fully automated driverless land transportation system” moving on the overhead parallel rails, and propulsion is provided by one or more electric motors in the vehicle/dolly. Thus, Reference 3 teaches a driverless electric vehicle with an electric motor coupled to the parallel rails and operable to traverse the elevated track. (Reference 3: fully automated driverless system; pair of overhead parallel steel rails; propulsion by electric motors in the dolly.)
LIMITATION 9D: “providing a second driverless electric vehicle with an electric motor …”
Reference 3 teaches a system having multiple vehicles operating on the track network, and thus providing a second driverless electric vehicle is taught by the multi-vehicle system operation described, including traffic flow and multiple vehicles traversing track sections. (Reference 3: multiple vehicles; vehicular flow; master control monitoring flow.)
LIMITATION 9E: “providing a command center for monitoring and tracking performance … comprising a control board … operable to track and control the speed …”
Reference 3 teaches computers at a master control that identify each vehicle and handle/monitor vehicular flow along the track network, and Reference 3 further teaches the vehicle motor will slow down or speed up controlled by a computer on board, with information relayed wireless and over cable to computers at the master control. This teaches a command center/master control monitoring vehicles and controlling speed/flow. (Reference 3: computers at a master control; identify each vehicle; handle and monitor vehicular flow; information relayed wireless and over cable; motor slows down or speeds up controlled by computer.)
LIMITATION 9F: “providing … on-board computers … operable to determine vehicle velocity and position and to transmit and process signals to and from said control board”
Reference 3 teaches “sensors in the vehicles” and “a computer on board each vehicle” using navigation software to determine the exact position of a vehicle, and that information is relayed wireless and over cable to computers at the master control. Determining position necessarily involves velocity/position tracking in such automated flow control, and the described wireless/cable relay teaches transmitting signals between onboard computer(s) and master control. (Reference 3: sensors in vehicles; computer on board each vehicle; determine exact position; information relayed wireless and over cable to master control computers.)
LIMITATION 9G: “wherein said control board comprises a CAN bus interface for communicating with said electric motors”
Reference 4 teaches an automotive controller (automotive controller 114) connected to sensors (sensors 120) and actuators (actuators 122), where the sensors and actuators communicate with the onboard controller through a CAN bus. This teaches use of a CAN bus interface in a vehicle controller to communicate with vehicle subsystems, including motor controllers/actuators. (Reference 4: automotive controller 114; sensors 120; actuators 122; CAN bus communication.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to implement the command center/control board (Reference 3) and/or vehicle controller communications using a CAN bus interface as taught by Reference 4 to communicate with electric motor control hardware.
LIMITATION 9H: “and a wireless communication module for wireless communication between said command center and said on-board computers”
Reference 3 expressly teaches that information is relayed “wireless” between the vehicles and the master control computers. Reference 4 teaches wireless communications (e.g., a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection) between a client device (client device 110) and a local device (local device 112) connected to the automotive controller 114. Together these teach a wireless communication module enabling wireless communications between a control center/client and an onboard controller/computer. (Reference 3: wireless relay to master control; Reference 4: client device 110; local device 112; wireless connection; automotive controller 114.)
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 9)
It would have been obvious to implement the master control/onboard computer communication architecture of Reference 3 using a standardized in-vehicle bus (CAN) and a wireless module as taught by Reference 4 because CAN is a known robust interface for motor/actuator control and diagnostics, and wireless communications provide flexible real-time monitoring/control from a control center. The combination yields predictable benefits of interoperability, reliable control messaging, and improved diagnostics in a multi-vehicle automated transportation system.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, further comprising: providing a plurality of banked turns, each banked turn having a designed speed associated with its radius of curvature; wherein said control board wirelessly adjusts electric motor torque and speed prior to entry of associated driverless vehicles into banked turns, based upon characteristics of said banked turns.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10
LIMITATION 10A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 10 is rejected on the same references applied to claim 9 (Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 10B: “providing a plurality of banked turns, each banked turn having a designed speed associated with its radius of curvature”
Reference 2 teaches curved and rolled track sections (curves and rolls), which correspond to banked turns. For such banked curves, selecting a target/design speed as a function of curve geometry (including radius) is a known design relationship in guided-vehicle track systems, particularly where the system is automated and speed is controlled. (Reference 2: curves and rolls; rails 14, 14’.)
LIMITATION 10C: “wherein said control board wirelessly adjusts electric motor torque and speed prior to entry … into banked turns, based upon characteristics of said banked turns”
Reference 3 teaches the propulsion motor will slow down or speed up controlled by a computer on board each vehicle to allow vehicles to keep rolling and merge without colliding, and further teaches information is relayed wireless and over cable to master control computers that handle/monitor flow. This teaches wireless control/coordination of vehicle speed. (Reference 3: motor slow down/speed up controlled; information relayed wireless; master control handles/monitors flow.)
Reference 4 teaches communication through an onboard controller and CAN bus to actuators, enabling control of motor/actuator behavior through the bus. Thus, combining Reference 3’s wireless supervisory control with Reference 4’s motor/actuator bus control teaches wireless adjustment of motor torque/speed via the control system prior to approaching known track features. (Reference 4: controller 114; CAN bus to actuators 122.)
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 10)
It would have been obvious to adjust torque and speed prior to entry into banked turns based on turn characteristics because doing so improves passenger comfort, safety, and reduces risk of excessive lateral forces and rail disengagement. Reference 3 already teaches automated modulation of vehicle speed for traffic/merge management, and applying the same automated control strategy to banked turns (taught by Reference 2) is a predictable use of known control capability to address another predictable operational condition (turn traversal), with motor control implementation supported by Reference 4’s CAN-based actuator control.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, wherein said control board further comprises a radar module interface for providing power to and communication with said driverless electric vehicles.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11
LIMITATION 11A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 11 is rejected on the same references applied to claim 9 (Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 11B: “control board further comprises a radar module interface for providing power to and communication with said driverless electric vehicles”
Reference 4 teaches the automotive controller (automotive controller 114) communicates with sensors (sensors 120) and actuators (actuators 122). A radar module is a known type of sensor used for vehicle detection and obstacle detection, and providing an interface that supplies power and communications to sensors is a routine implementation of sensor integration in vehicle control boards/controllers. (Reference 4: automotive controller 114; sensors 120; communications architecture.)
[VERIFY] If applicant argues that Reference 4 does not expressly disclose radar, the examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to include radar as one of the sensors (sensors 120) interfaced to the control board/controller to enhance obstacle/vehicle detection in an automated transportation system, because radar sensors and powered communication interfaces are conventional in vehicle control architectures, and Reference 3’s automated system safety/flow benefits from obstacle/vehicle detection inputs.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 11)
It would have been obvious to include a radar sensor interface on the control board to improve safety by detecting vehicles/obstacles ahead and to support automated control decisions, because Reference 3 teaches automated multi-vehicle control and monitoring, and Reference 4 teaches a controller architecture interfacing to sensors (sensors 120) and actuators (actuators 122), making the addition of a radar sensor interface a predictable safety enhancement.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, wherein said control board further comprises an accelerometer for providing redundant vehicle position data to said command center.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12
LIMITATION 12A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 12 is rejected on the same references applied to claim 9 (Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 12B: “control board further comprises an accelerometer for providing redundant vehicle position data to said command center”
Reference 3 teaches the use of sensors and an onboard computer to determine vehicle position and relay information to master control computers. Reference 4 teaches controller integration with sensors (sensors 120). An accelerometer is a conventional vehicle sensor used to determine acceleration and support dead-reckoning/position estimation when combined with velocity/position tracking.
[VERIFY] If applicant argues the specific accelerometer is not expressly disclosed, it would have been obvious to include an accelerometer as one of the sensors (sensors 120) interfaced to the controller (controller 114) to provide redundancy for position estimation in a driverless system, because redundancy in position estimation is a well-known reliability design for automated vehicle systems and is consistent with Reference 3’s reliance on automation and position determination by sensors/computers.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 12)
It would have been obvious to include an accelerometer to provide redundant position-related data because redundancy increases reliability of automated tracking/control, particularly in a multi-vehicle system. Reference 3 already teaches onboard sensor-based position determination relayed to a master control, and Reference 4 teaches integration of sensors into the controller architecture, making the addition of an accelerometer a predictable and routine redundancy enhancement.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, wherein said electric motors are rotatable such that said rotatable motor and an associated rear differential rotate as a unit about a central axis point to accommodate banked turns.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13
LIMITATION 13A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 13 is rejected over Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 1 for the rotatable motor/differential unit.
LIMITATION 13B: “electric motors are rotatable such that said rotatable motor and an associated rear differential rotate as a unit about a central axis point to accommodate banked turns”
Reference 1 teaches a motor (motor 33) rigidly mounted to the principal axle assembly (principal axle assembly 38) which pivots about an axis (axis X) to cause the vehicle to roll, and further teaches a differential assembly (differential assembly 47) integrated with the axle assembly. Thus, motor 33 and differential assembly 47 rotate/pivot together as a unit about axis X. This teaches the claimed rotatable motor and differential rotating together about a central axis for turn/bank accommodation. (Reference 1: motor 33; principal axle assembly 38; axis X; differential assembly 47; bogie 32.)
Reference 2 teaches banked/rolled turns (curves and rolls). Incorporating Reference 1’s pivoting motor/differential unit into the driverless electric vehicles of Reference 3 for operation on banked turns (Reference 2) would provide the claimed accommodation through banked turns.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 13)
It would have been obvious to use a rotatable/pivoting motor and differential unit as taught by Reference 1 to accommodate banked turns because pivoting the drivetrain with the wheel assembly reduces misalignment and mechanical stress during roll through banked sections, improves traction consistency, and enhances reliability. Reference 3 teaches driverless electric vehicles with motors on guided tracks, and applying Reference 1’s pivoting drivetrain to such vehicles is a predictable use of known drivetrain articulation to address predictable roll/turn conditions in banked track segments taught by Reference 2.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, further comprising: providing real-time predictive maintenance whereby said on-board computers monitor vehicle energy usage and compare said actual energy usage with expected values.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14
LIMITATION 14A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 14 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 14 is rejected on the same references applied to claim 9 (Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 14B: “providing real-time predictive maintenance whereby said on-board computers monitor vehicle energy usage and compare said actual energy usage with expected values”
Reference 3 teaches automated vehicles with onboard computers and system monitoring/operation, and the system context implies monitoring of vehicle operation parameters. Reference 4 teaches collecting operational data from vehicle systems via a controller and CAN bus communications between the controller and vehicle subsystems/actuators, which is a standard pathway for powertrain and energy-related data (e.g., motor commands, actuator status, diagnostic data) to be collected and evaluated.
It would have been obvious to monitor energy usage (e.g., electrical power draw, current, voltage, commanded torque) through the onboard controller and to compare actual energy usage to expected values for anomaly detection, because such comparisons are a routine diagnostic/predictive maintenance technique to detect increased friction, failing components, or degraded performance in motorized vehicles, and the necessary data is accessible via the same onboard control and communication architecture taught by Reference 4 and the automated monitoring/control architecture of Reference 3.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 14)
It would have been obvious to implement predictive maintenance by comparing measured energy usage to expected values because this is a predictable and commonly used diagnostic approach to detect abnormal operating conditions before failure, thereby improving reliability and reducing downtime in an automated transportation system. Reference 3’s master control and onboard computers already monitor/coordinate vehicle operation, and Reference 4’s CAN-based architecture enables collection of motor/powertrain data suitable for such comparisons.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, further comprising: providing real-time predictive maintenance whereby said on-board computers monitor vehicle powertrain characteristics and transit said information to said control board for command center processing.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 15
LIMITATION 15A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 15 is rejected on the same references applied to claim 9 (Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 15B: “providing real-time predictive maintenance whereby said on-board computers monitor vehicle powertrain characteristics … [transmit] said information to said control board for command center processing”
Reference 4 teaches an automotive controller (automotive controller 114) connected to sensors/actuators (sensors 120; actuators 122) with communications over CAN bus, which is used to exchange commands and diagnostic/operational data. This teaches monitoring powertrain-related characteristics (e.g., actuator/motor control and diagnostic data) via the onboard controller and communicating such information outward via the communication architecture. (Reference 4: controller 114; sensors 120; actuators 122; CAN bus.)
Reference 3 teaches information is relayed wireless and over cable from vehicles to master control computers that handle/monitor vehicular flow. Thus, transmitting monitored vehicle information to a control board/command center is taught. (Reference 3: information relayed wireless and over cable to master control computers.)
Accordingly, monitoring powertrain characteristics onboard and transmitting them to the command center/control board is taught/obvious from the combination.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 15)
It would have been obvious to transmit monitored powertrain characteristics to the command center for processing because centralized analysis enables fleet-wide maintenance decisions, early detection of abnormal vehicles, and improved system reliability. Reference 3 already teaches centralized master control monitoring vehicle information, and Reference 4 teaches onboard collection of vehicle system data via CAN and communication architectures, making this predictive maintenance data path a predictable and straightforward implementation.
A method of operating the transportation system according to claim 9, further comprising: providing redundant vehicle position information through sensors located on said track members, vehicle mounted GPS sensors, and sensors of other vehicles.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 16
LIMITATION 16A: “The transportation system according to claim 9”
Claim 16 depends from claim 9 and incorporates the limitations of claim 9. Claim 16 is rejected on the same references applied to claim 9 (Reference 3 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 2).
LIMITATION 16B: “providing redundant vehicle position information through sensors located on said track members …”
Reference 3 teaches “location markers and conventional electronic signals in the tracks” along with sensors in the vehicles that allow the onboard computer to determine exact position, which teaches track-located sensing/marking contributing to position determination. (Reference 3: location markers and electronic signals in the tracks; sensors in vehicles; onboard computer determines exact position.)
LIMITATION 16C: “… vehicle mounted GPS sensors …”
Reference 3 teaches sensor-based position determination and automated navigation; GPS is a conventional vehicle positioning sensor used in automated transportation systems. [VERIFY] If applicant argues GPS is not expressly disclosed in Reference 3, it would have been obvious to include GPS sensors as part of the vehicle sensor suite because GPS is a known, readily integrable positioning technology used to provide absolute position estimates, and Reference 3’s onboard computer and sensors for position are compatible with GPS integration.
LIMITATION 16D: “… and sensors of other vehicles”
Reference 3 teaches multiple vehicles operating on a network with system-level monitoring and communications relayed to master control. In such multi-vehicle systems, it is a known redundancy approach to use detection/communication from other vehicles (e.g., vehicle-to-vehicle awareness) to corroborate position/spacing.
[VERIFY] To the extent the “sensors of other vehicles” is not expressly disclosed in Reference 3, it would have been obvious to incorporate other-vehicle sensing/communications in a multi-vehicle driverless system to improve redundancy and collision avoidance because the system already depends on coordinated vehicle flow and communications, and adding additional redundant sources of position/spacing information is a predictable safety enhancement.
MOTIVATION (CLAIM 16)
It would have been obvious to provide redundant position information via track-based markers/sensors, onboard positioning sensors (including GPS), and information from other vehicles because redundancy improves safety and reliability in automated traffic flow systems by mitigating single-sensor failures and improving confidence in position/spacing estimates. Reference 3 already teaches track-based markers/signals and onboard sensor-based position determination with wireless relay to master control, and extending that architecture to incorporate additional redundant sources (including GPS and other-vehicle information) is a predictable design choice to improve robustness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613