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 06/23/23 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 3-4, 7, and 14-17 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.
ISSUE: “TWO-DIMENSIONAL ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETIC MATERIAL” LACKS REASONABLY CLEAR BOUNDARIES
Claims 3–4 and 16–17 recite “at least one two-dimensional room temperature superconducting magnetic material,” and further specify “graphene.” The claim language does not provide reasonably clear boundaries as to what constitutes (i) “room temperature” in the context of superconductivity (e.g., a specific critical temperature Tc threshold), (ii) what properties render the material “superconducting” and “magnetic” for the claimed “magnetic levitation motor,” and (iii) what structural or compositional parameters define the scope of “two-dimensional” in this context. As written, the metes and bounds depend on ambiguous, potentially shifting scientific/engineering interpretations, rather than an objectively determinable claim boundary.
The specification appears to mention the concept of a “two-dimensional” superconducting material and identifies graphene as an example, but does not, on its face, provide objective definitional criteria in the claims that would allow a person of ordinary skill to determine with reasonable certainty whether a given material falls within the scope. See, e.g., portions of the Detailed Description discussing superconducting magnetic materials and graphene.
ISSUE: “PASSIVE MAGNETIC TAKE-OFF SPEEDS” IS SUBJECTIVE AND CONTEXT-DEPENDENT
Claim 7 recites “passive magnetic take-off speeds at which magnetic levitation of the coupler is activated.” The phrase “passive magnetic take-off speeds” lacks a clear, objective baseline because the “take-off speed” will vary with track design, levitation technology (e.g., EMS/EDS), mass, gap, control regime, and magnetic field configuration. The claim does not specify the physical condition that constitutes “activated” levitation (e.g., a levitation gap threshold, a force balance condition, or an operational state signaled by a control system).
Accordingly, the scope is not reasonably certain because it is unclear whether “take-off speeds” is a fixed threshold, a range, or merely a functional label for “whatever speed happens to work” in a given design.
ISSUE: “TUBULAR MAGNETIC LEVITATION MOTOR COMPRISING A FIRST TUBE EXTENDING WITHIN A SECOND TUBE” IS UNCLEAR AS CLAIMED IN THE SYSTEM CONTEXT
Claim 15 recites “a tubular magnetic levitation motor comprising a first tube extending within a second tube.” The claim does not specify which structure is “tubular,” how the “motor” is constituted by the tubes, where the propulsive/levitation magnetic elements reside, or how this “motor” integrates with the system’s “track portions” and “coupler.” The term “tubular magnetic levitation motor” as claimed reads as a functional label without sufficient structural boundaries in the claim language.
While the specification includes figures and description of example track/coupler geometries, the claim language itself does not define the structural relationship between the “first tube,” “second tube,” and the motor’s operative magnetic components in a manner that provides clear claim scope.
SUGGESTION TO OVERCOME: Applicant may amend to recite structural features that make the “tubes” a “magnetic levitation motor” (e.g., coils, permanent magnets, stator/rotor arrangement, superconducting elements, and their placement relative to the tubes), and to specify how the tubular structure interfaces with the coupler/track for levitation and propulsion.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim(s) 3–4 and 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for other claimed aspects, does not reasonably provide enablement commensurate in scope with, and/or does not demonstrate possession of, the full scope of the claimed invention as it pertains to “two-dimensional room temperature superconducting magnetic material” and “graphene” used as such material for a magnetic levitation motor.
The claims broadly require a room-temperature superconducting (and magnetic) two-dimensional material, including graphene, in the claimed levitation motor/tubular motor context. The disclosure appears to identify these materials at a high level, but does not, on its face, teach how to obtain, fabricate, integrate, and operate a “room temperature superconducting” graphene (or other two-dimensional material) in a maglev propulsion/levitation motor such that the invention can be made and used without undue experimentation across the full scope of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to as being of improper dependency. Claim 15 is presented as “The system of claim 11,” but claim 11 is not a system claim; claim 11 depends from claim 1 and is drawn to “The coupler of claim 1, further comprising ….” Accordingly, claim 15 does not properly further limit the claim from which it depends and is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Claim 16 is objected to for grammatical inconsistency (“wherein at least one of the first and second tubes comprising …”). Applicant should amend to “comprises” or otherwise correct the dependency language to clearly set forth the intended limitation.
Claim 8 and claim 9 are objected to for potential clarity issues regarding power sources. Claim 9 refers to “loss of external power to the coupler,” but the claims do not clearly define “external power” relative to the previously recited “electrical power grid” and battery power. Applicant is invited to clarify whether “external power” refers to track/grid power, wireless inducted power, or another source.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 LaCabe et al., US 2013/0125778 A1
REFERENCE 2 Basic et al., US 4,793,263 (issued Dec. 27, 1988)
REFERENCE 3 Otten, US 8,459,188 B2 (issued Jun. 11, 2013)
REFERENCE 4 Shaw, US 3,858,521 (issued Jan. 7, 1975)
REFERENCE 5 US 5,081,932 (issued Jan. 21, 1992)
REFERENCE 6 US 3,913,495 (issued Oct. 21, 1975)
REFERENCE 7 US 10,491,093 B2 (issued Dec. 3, 2019)
REFERENCE 8 US 11,710,584 B2 (issued Aug. 1, 2023)
REFERENCE 9 Romine et al., US 5,289,778 (issued Mar. 1, 1994)
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, AND 10: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
A coupler configured to be attached to a magnetic levitation rail system, the coupler comprising: at least one connector configured to controllably and repeatedly latch onto a body configured to contain at least one passenger and/or cargo and to controllably and repeatedly detach from the body; at least one magnetic levitation motor configured to use magnetic levitation to propel the coupler along the magnetic levitation rail system; at least one electrical conductor configured to be in electrical communication with an electrical power grid of the magnetic levitation rail system; at least one battery configured to receive and store power from the electrical power grid via the at least one electrical conductor; a plurality of wheels configured to be in mechanical communication with the magnetic levitation rail system; and a motor subsystem in mechanical communication with the plurality of wheels, the motor subsystem configured to drive the plurality of wheels to propel the body along the magnetic levitation rail system.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1
Limitation 1(a): “A coupler configured to be attached to a magnetic levitation rail system …”
Reference 1 teaches a track-traveling carrier, namely vehicle conveyance apparatus 12, which is mechanically engaged with and travels along track 29 while carrying a detachable passenger/cargo body car-pod 2.
Reference 2 teaches a magnetic levitation transportation system in which vehicle 12 is suspended and propelled along guideway 14 via stator assemblies 10 confronting reaction rail 16.
It would have been obvious to configure the Reference 1 carrier (apparatus 12) to operate on the Reference 2 maglev guideway (14/16 with motor components 10), thereby yielding a coupler attached to and operable with a magnetic levitation rail system.
Limitation 1(b): “at least one connector … repeatedly latch onto a body … and … detach …”
Reference 1 teaches coupling mechanism 22 on apparatus 12 that secures and releases the passenger/cargo body car-pod 2 via cooperative engagement with car-pod coupling mechanism 52. Reference 1 further teaches the coupling/uncoupling is performed in controlled operation, enabling repeated latch and repeated detach.
Limitation 1(c): “at least one magnetic levitation motor … to propel the coupler along the … rail system …”
Reference 2 teaches a linear synchronous unipolar motor providing suspension and propulsion: stator assemblies 10 on vehicle 12 confront reaction rail 16 on guideway 14; permanent magnets 40 and field control coil 48 establish/maintain suspension air gap 46; propulsion coil 50 (windings 52) produces traveling magnetic flux to propel vehicle 12 along reaction rail 16.
Thus, Reference 2 teaches a magnetic levitation motor used to propel a vehicle/coupler along the rail/guideway.
Limitation 1(d): “at least one electrical conductor … in electrical communication with an electrical power grid …”
Reference 3 teaches an inductive rail power infrastructure: primary conductor 24 (including line sections 24a/24b) energized by voltage source 26, and a vehicle-mounted pickup/receiver coil 27 (27a/27b). Coil 27 is an electrical conductor on the vehicle in electrical communication with the rail power infrastructure via inductive coupling.
Limitation 1(e): “at least one battery … receive and store power … via the … electrical conductor …”
Reference 3 teaches buffer batteries 44 that receive/store energy obtained via pickup coil 27 and power conversion (e.g., converter 46) for onboard use (onboard network 16). Reference 1 also teaches onboard battery supply 28 for the vehicle conveyance apparatus 12. Thus, the combination teaches storing rail-supplied energy in onboard battery storage.
Limitation 1(f): “a plurality of wheels … in mechanical communication with the … rail system …”
Reference 1 teaches multiple wheels on the track-traveling apparatus: drive wheels 14 and support wheels 16 in mechanical contact/communication with track 29.
Reference 2 teaches wheels in a maglev context, including wheels 23 (and wheels 15 in a related wheel/air-gap arrangement) associated with guideway 14 surfaces, illustrating wheel structures in mechanical communication with the guideway system.
Limitation 1(g): “a motor subsystem … configured to drive the … wheels to propel the body …”
Reference 1 teaches drive motor 20 mechanically driving drive wheels 14 to propel apparatus 12 along track 29. Because car-pod 2 is coupled to apparatus 12 through coupling mechanism 22 and car-pod coupling mechanism 52, propulsion of apparatus 12 correspondingly propels the coupled body (car-pod 2) along the rail/track.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 1
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference 1’s detachable-body carrier architecture (apparatus 12 with coupling mechanism 22/52 for repeated coupling of car-pod 2) with Reference 2’s maglev propulsion/suspension motor (stator assemblies 10 interacting with reaction rail 16, using magnets 40, field control coil 48, and propulsion coil 50) to obtain predictable benefits of reduced rolling losses and improved high-speed/smooth operation while retaining modular attach/detach of the passenger/cargo body.
A person of ordinary skill would further have been motivated to incorporate Reference 3’s contactless rail power interface (primary conductor 24 powered by voltage source 26 and pickup coil 27 charging buffer batteries 44) to provide a predictable, low-wear method of supplying energy to the moving coupler and charging onboard battery storage.
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the at least one connector comprises a pair of mechanical grips.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 2
Reference 1 teaches a secure coupling arrangement using coupling mechanism 22 on apparatus 12 engaging car-pod coupling mechanism 52 on car-pod 2. A secure, repeatable coupling for a suspended passenger/cargo pod would have been understood to employ at least two cooperative engagement members to resist rotation and distribute load, i.e., a pair of opposed mechanical gripping/locking elements that engage the body-side coupling mechanism 52.
Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over References 1–3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 2
It would have been obvious to implement coupling mechanism 22/52 using a pair of mechanical grips because opposed gripping members provide a predictable, robust way to achieve repeatable secure attachment with controlled release, while improving stability and redundancy for a detachable passenger/cargo body under transit loads.
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the at least one electrical conductor comprises at least one magnetic induction coil configured to wirelessly receive power from the magnetic rail system.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 5
Reference 3 expressly teaches pickup/receiver coil 27 (including 27a/27b) receiving power wirelessly from the energized rail-side primary conductor 24 (24a/24b) powered by voltage source 26. Coil 27 is a magnetic induction coil used for contactless power reception.
Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable over References 1–3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 5
It would have been obvious to use an induction coil power receiver (Reference 3: coil 27 receiving from conductor 24) to obtain predictable benefits of avoiding sliding-contact wear and arcing while providing continuous onboard power and battery charging to a moving rail vehicle.
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the motor subsystem comprises at least one motor and stabilization controls.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 6
Reference 1 teaches drive motor 20 driving drive wheels 14 and further teaches control/sensing for stable operation, including command/control modules 26 and proximity sensors 24, used to manage vehicle operations on track 29 (including control of motion and safe spacing/positioning). These are stabilization controls integrated with propulsion.
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over References 1–3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 6
It would have been obvious to include stabilization controls (Reference 1: modules 26 and sensors 24) with the propulsion motor subsystem because closed-loop control is a predictable necessity for safe, stable guided-rail operation (speed regulation, spacing, docking, and coupling operations).
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the plurality of wheels and the motor subsystem are configured to propel the coupler along the magnetic levitation rail system using power received from the at least one battery.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 8
Reference 1 teaches battery supply 28 on apparatus 12 in conjunction with powered drive motor 20 driving drive wheels 14. Reference 3 teaches buffer batteries 44 charged from pickup coil 27. It would have been obvious to power the wheel-drive propulsion (Reference 1: motor 20/wheels 14) from onboard stored energy (battery supply 28 and/or buffer batteries 44), particularly for low-speed operation, docking, and rail-power discontinuities.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over References 1–3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 8
It would have been obvious to power wheel propulsion from onboard battery storage (Reference 1: battery 28; Reference 3: batteries 44) to provide predictable benefits of continued mobility and controlled operation when external rail power transfer is interrupted or not used (e.g., station zones, transitions, or contingency operation).
The coupler of claim 1, further comprising at least one communication device configured to wirelessly transmit and/or receive signals to and/or from the magnetic levitation rail system.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10
Reference 1 teaches transmitting antennas 50 on the moving apparatus communicating with track-side nodes such as local track nodes 35, enabling exchange of signals between apparatus 12 and track infrastructure.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over References 1–3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 10
It would have been obvious to include wireless vehicle-to-track communications (Reference 1: antennas 50 and track nodes 35) because automated rail systems predictably require coordination for routing, spacing, coupling/decoupling control, and fault reporting.
======
CLAIMS 3 AND 4: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 8
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the at least one magnetic levitation motor comprises at least one two-dimensional room temperature superconducting magnetic material.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 3
Reference 2 teaches a maglev motor structure with magnetic field-producing components (e.g., permanent magnets 40; field control coil 48; propulsion coil 50) interacting with reaction rail 16 to suspend and propel.
Reference 8 teaches wetted perforated graphene 10 described as superconducting above room temperature. Graphene 10 is a two-dimensional material.
It would have been obvious to incorporate superconducting graphene material 10 into electromagnetic components of the motor (e.g., conductor structures or magnetic-field-associated structures in the stator assembly 10 / stator body 26) to improve efficiency and/or magnetic performance, thereby meeting the additional limitation.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 8.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 3
It would have been obvious to incorporate a superconducting graphene-based material (Reference 8: graphene 10) into a maglev motor (Reference 2: motor components 10/40/48/50 interacting with rail 16) to obtain predictable benefits of reduced electrical losses and improved electromagnetic performance in a propulsion/levitation system.
The coupler of claim 3, wherein the at least one two-dimensional room temperature superconducting magnetic material comprises graphene.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 4
Reference 8 expressly teaches graphene-based superconducting material, namely wetted perforated graphene 10.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 8.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 4
It would have been obvious to select graphene specifically because Reference 8 teaches graphene 10 as the superconducting material providing the relevant behavior above room temperature, making it an expressly taught material choice for satisfying the dependent limitation.
======
CLAIM 7: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the plurality of wheels and the motor subsystem are configured to accelerate the coupler to passive magnetic take-off speeds at which magnetic levitation of the coupler is activated.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 7
Reference 1 teaches wheel propulsion via drive motor 20 driving drive wheels 14, with support wheels 16.
Reference 4 teaches a maglev vehicle arrangement where wheels 12 support the vehicle at start/low speed, and levitation magnets 13 provide levitation after reaching an operating speed condition (i.e., wheel-supported acceleration to levitation activation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to configure the wheel subsystem of Reference 1 (20/14/16) as the low-speed acceleration subsystem in a maglev-enabled coupler (Reference 2 motor; Reference 4 transition concept) so the coupler accelerates on wheels until levitation becomes active.
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 4.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 7
It would have been obvious to use wheel-based acceleration until levitation becomes active (Reference 4: wheels 12 and levitation magnets 13) because maglev systems predictably benefit from low-speed support/launch on wheels to simplify start/stop and station maneuvering while enabling smooth transition to levitated travel.
======
CLAIM 9: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 9
The coupler of claim 8, wherein the plurality of wheels and the motor subsystem are configured to be controllably activated in the event of loss of external power to the coupler.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9
Reference 9 teaches electrically driven vehicle 30 with onboard energy storage means 34 and energy storage module 36 providing energy when unavailable from a fixed source; and rail power bus 100 and power transmission means 98 providing external rail power when available. Reference 9 further teaches automatic controls (e.g., computer 134 and control/indicating means 132) and warning means 174 associated with switching/operational modes.
It would have been obvious to implement a controlled fallback mode where the wheel-drive motor subsystem (Reference 1: motor 20 and wheels 14) is activated and powered from onboard batteries (Reference 1: battery 28; Reference 3: batteries 44; Reference 9: storage 34/36) upon loss of external rail power transfer (Reference 3: 24/26/27; Reference 9: bus 100).
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 9.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 9
It would have been obvious to provide controlled wheel-propulsion activation upon external power loss (Reference 9: onboard storage 34/36 supporting vehicle operation when fixed-source power is unavailable) to obtain predictable safety and reliability benefits, including enabling the vehicle/coupler to move to a safe location and maintain controllability during a rail-power interruption.
======
CLAIMS 11, 12, AND 13: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 5 (CLAIM 11) AND REFERENCE 6 (CLAIMS 12–13)
The coupler of claim 1, further comprising a cable release mechanism configured to allow the body to be controllably lowered from the coupler.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11
Reference 5 teaches a controllable lowering arrangement using winch 79 and rope 80 to lower rescue vessel 82 from cabin 26.
It would have been obvious to incorporate a winch/cable lowering mechanism (Reference 5: 79/80) into the detachable-body coupler system (Reference 1: apparatus 12 carrying car-pod 2 via coupling 22/52) to allow controlled lowering of the body (car-pod 2) from the coupler in emergency or maintenance scenarios.
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 5.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 11
It would have been obvious to provide a controllable lowering mechanism (Reference 5: winch 79 and rope 80) because elevated/suspended transport systems predictably benefit from an emergency evacuation or recovery feature allowing a carried passenger/cargo body to be lowered in a controlled manner.
The coupler of claim 1, further comprising at least one shock absorber configured to inhibit vibrations of the body while travelling along the magnetic levitation rail system.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12
Reference 6 teaches vibration/shock damping using cushioning means 39 (including elastomeric block 20 and coil spring 22) between vehicle structures, providing damping and vibration isolation.
It would have been obvious to include such cushioning/shock absorbing elements (Reference 6: 39/20/22) in the coupler-to-body interface (Reference 1: between apparatus 12 and car-pod 2 coupled by 22/52) to reduce vibration transmitted to passengers/cargo.
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 6.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 12
It would have been obvious to include a shock absorber/damper (Reference 6: cushioning means 39 with elastomeric block 20 and spring 22) because vibration isolation is a predictable design choice in passenger/cargo transport to improve comfort and reduce wear.
The coupler of claim 1, further comprising a radial bearing swivel configured to allow an orientation of the body relative to the magnetic levitation rail system to be controllably adjusted.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13
Reference 6 teaches pivot means 28 and pivot pin 29 enabling relative orientation change between connected structures.
It would have been obvious to incorporate a swivel/pivot bearing arrangement (Reference 6: 28/29) at the coupler-body interface (Reference 1: 12-to-2 coupling via 22/52) to allow controlled body orientation adjustment relative to the guideway/rail system (e.g., for alignment, comfort, and load management).
Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over References 1–3 in further view of Reference 6.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 13
It would have been obvious to include a swivel/pivot bearing (Reference 6: pivot means 28 and pivot pin 29) because allowing controlled relative rotation is a predictable method for accommodating curves/grades, reducing torsional loads, and enabling alignment of a carried body with station interfaces.
======
CLAIMS 14 AND 18: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A magnetic levitation track system comprising: a plurality of track portions; and at least one coupler in mechanical communication with the plurality of track portions and configured to travel along the plurality of track portions using magnetic levitation, the at least one coupler configured to controllably and repeatedly latch onto a body configured to contain at least one passenger and/or cargo and to controllably and repeatedly detach from the body.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14
Reference 2 teaches a maglev guideway 14 with reaction rail 16 extending along the length of the guideway.
It would have been obvious to implement the track network of Reference 1 using the maglev guideway/reaction rail structure of Reference 2, yielding a magnetic levitation track system with plural track portions.
Limitation 14(b): “at least one coupler in mechanical communication … configured to travel … using magnetic levitation …”
Reference 1 teaches a track-traveling carrier, vehicle conveyance apparatus 12, in mechanical engagement with track 29 for travel.
Reference 2 teaches maglev travel of vehicle 12 along guideway 14 via stator assemblies 10 confronting reaction rail 16, providing suspension (air gap 46 controlled by coils 48 and/or gap device 20) and propulsion (propulsion coil 50).
Thus, it would have been obvious to configure the Reference 1 coupler/carrier (apparatus 12) to travel using the Reference 2 maglev mechanism on a guideway system, meeting this limitation.
Limitation 14(c): “coupler … repeatedly latch onto … body … and … detach …”
Reference 1 teaches repeated coupling/decoupling of the passenger/cargo body car-pod 2 using coupling mechanism 22 and car-pod coupling mechanism 52.
Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 14
It would have been obvious to combine the detachable-body system of Reference 1 (apparatus 12 with coupling 22/52 to attach/detach car-pod 2) with the maglev propulsion/suspension system of Reference 2 (motor components 10/40/48/50 interacting with reaction rail 16 on guideway 14) to obtain predictable benefits of reduced rolling resistance and improved speed/smoothness while retaining modular attach/detach capability.
The system of claim 14, wherein the at least one coupler is a shuttle that remains on the plurality of track portions.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 18
Reference 1 teaches apparatus 12 as the dedicated track-traveling conveyance unit operating on track 29 while detachable bodies (car-pod 2) are coupled/decoupled. This is a shuttle-like carrier that remains on the track system.
Accordingly, claim 18 is unpatentable over References 1–2.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 18
It would have been obvious to implement the coupler as a shuttle that remains on the track because Reference 1 teaches the operational advantages of a dedicated conveyance apparatus 12 remaining in service on the track while detachable bodies (car-pods 2) are exchanged, improving throughput and reducing dwell time.
======
CLAIMS 15, 16, AND 17: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 7, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 8 (CLAIMS 16–17)
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one coupler comprises a tubular magnetic levitation motor comprising a first tube extending within a second tube.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 15
Reference 7 teaches a tubular motor structure including outer tube 101 and internal mover 104 separated by air gap 103, i.e., an inner motor member positioned within an outer tubular member (a first tube within a second tube).
Reference 2 teaches a maglev motor providing propulsion and suspension (e.g., motor components 10/26/40/48/50 interacting with reaction rail 16).
It would have been obvious to implement the maglev motor architecture in a tubular form factor as taught by Reference 7 (outer tube 101 with internal mover 104) to obtain compact coaxial packaging while delivering linear motor function.
Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable over References 1–2 in further view of Reference 7.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 15
It would have been obvious to use a tubular, tube-within-tube motor configuration (Reference 7: outer tube 101 and internal mover 104) because tubular motor geometries predictably provide compact packaging and alignment benefits while performing the same linear propulsion function needed for a guideway vehicle (Reference 2), making the substitution a routine design choice.
The system of claim 15, wherein at least one of the first and second tubes comprising at least one two-dimensional room temperature superconducting magnetic material.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 16
Reference 8 teaches graphene-based superconducting material, wetted perforated graphene 10, described as superconducting above room temperature.
It would have been obvious to incorporate superconducting graphene material 10 into at least one tubular motor component (e.g., outer tube 101 and/or internal mover 104 of Reference 7) to improve electromagnetic efficiency and/or performance in a propulsion/levitation context.
Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable over References 1–2 and 7 in further view of Reference 8.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 16
It would have been obvious to incorporate a superconducting graphene-based material (Reference 8: graphene 10) into tubular motor components (Reference 7: 101/104) because superconducting materials predictably reduce resistive losses and can improve electromagnetic performance in motor/levitation systems, making the material substitution a predictable optimization.
The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one two-dimensional room temperature superconducting magnetic material comprises graphene.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 17
Reference 8 expressly teaches graphene material 10 as the superconducting material.
Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable over References 1–2 and 7 in further view of Reference 8.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT — CLAIM 17
It would have been obvious to select graphene because Reference 8 explicitly teaches graphene 10 as providing the superconducting behavior above room temperature, making it an expressly taught material for satisfying the dependent limitation.
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