DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-8 and 11-21 are currently pending. Claims 1, 4-8 and 11-20 are maintained in rejection despite Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 04/06/2026. New claim 21 is additionally rejected. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. This Office action is made final.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,701,970 in view of Marra et al. (US 7,340,329). The patented claims fully encompass the instant claims with the exception of the instant claims reciting a responsive device (see amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15). However, using a responsive device (e.g., switch or actuator), in combination with a controller, to disconnect the vehicle from the conductive pathway while travelling through a phase break is known in the prior art (see Marra, circuit breaker 36, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 41-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the patented claims to use the circuit breaker of Marra as a responsive device to disconnect the vehicle from the conductive pathway while travelling through a phase break because “[t]his provides appropriate isolation of the sectionalized electrified conductors from each other and prevents damage to the electrical system of the electrified vehicle” (Marra, Col. 1, lines 24-26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marra et al. (US 7,340,329).
Referring to Claim 15: Marra discloses a system, comprising:
a collector device (16) configured to be disposed onboard a vehicle (10) and to move relative to a conductive pathway (20) extending along a route (18), the collector device configured to receive electric energy from the conductive pathway to power one or more loads (34) of the vehicle during movement of the vehicle along the route (Fig. 1) (Col. 2, lines 37-50);
a responsive device (36) configured to control a source of power for the one or more loads of the vehicle for travel of the vehicle (Col. 2, lines 51-58); and
a controller (30) configured to monitor locations of the vehicle and to determine whether the vehicle is approaching a phase break (24) of the conductive pathway (Step 52 in Fig. 3) (Col. 3, lines 38-43), the controller configured to control the responsive device to change the source of power for the one or more loads from the collector device prior to the vehicle reaching the phase break (Step 54 in Fig. 3) (Col. 3, lines 43-52).
Referring to Claim 16: Marra discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the phase break (24) includes a section of the route (18) that does not have the conductive pathway (Col. 2, lines 38-41).
21. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises a collector device (16) configured to receive power from the conductive pathway (20) (Fig. 1), and the responsive device (36) comprises at least one of the following:
a switch (“circuit breaker”) positioned proximate to the collector device (16) of the vehicle (10) (Fig. 1) (Col. 3, lines 41-52); and
an actuator configured to move the collector device in at least one direction relative to the conductive pathway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra in view of Barlini et al. (US 2016/0304000 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Marra teaches a system, comprising:
a responsive device (36) configured to connect and disconnect a vehicle (10) with a conductive pathway (20) operable to supply power to the vehicle (Col. 2, lines 51-58); and
a controller (30) configured to:
obtain a location of a phase break (24) along a route (18) to be traversed by the vehicle (10) (Col. 4, lines 26-29) (Fig. 1);
monitor a location of the vehicle (Col. 3, lines 38-40) (Fig. 3);
determine an arrival time of the vehicle (10) at the location of the phase break (24) based at least in part on the location of the phase break and the location of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 31-34); and
control the responsive device (36) based at least in part on the arrival time (Col. 4, lines 31-34) to change a source of power (Col. 4, lines 35-42) for one or more loads for propulsion of the vehicle from the conductive pathway (24)
As noted by strikethrough above, Marra does not specifically teach changing the source of the power to one or more energy storage devices onboard the vehicle. However, Barlini teaches an electrical power supply system for an electrically propelled vehicle, wherein the controller (12) and a diode (30) are configured to change the source of the power to one or more energy storage devices (10) (Para. [0053]) onboard the vehicle (1) and to stop receiving the power from the conductive pathway (16) during travel of the vehicle in the autonomous power supply zone (22) (Para. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to change the source of the power to a battery onboard the vehicle, as taught by Barlini, in order to provide continuous power to the traction unit during the phase break, without the need to idle electrical subsystems to reduce current load in the phase break (see Marra, Col. 3, lines 48-52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 4: Marra in view of Barlini, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the system, wherein the controller (30) is configured to control the responsive device (36) to change the source of the power back to the conductive pathway after the vehicle exits the phase break (Col. 3, lines 53-62).
Referring to Claim 5: Marra in view of Barlini, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the system, wherein the phase break (24) is a section of the route (18) that does not have the conductive pathway (Col. 2, lines 38-41).
Referring to Claim 8: Marra teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining a location of a phase break (24) along a route (18) to be traversed by a vehicle (10) (Col. 4, lines 26-29) (Fig. 1);
obtaining a location of the vehicle (Col. 3, lines 38-40) (Fig. 3);
determining an arrival time (Col. 4, lines 31-34) of the vehicle at the location of the phase break based at least in part on the location of the phase break and the location of the vehicle (Step 52 in Fig. 3) (Col. 3, lines 38-43) (Col. 4, lines 31-34); and
controlling a responsive device (36) based at least in part on the arrival time to change a source of power for one or more loads (34) of the vehicle for travel of the vehicle from the conductive pathway (20)
As noted by strikethrough above, Marra does not specifically teach changing the source of the power to one or more energy storage devices onboard the vehicle. However, Barlini teaches an electrical power supply system for an electrically propelled vehicle, wherein the controller (12) and a diode (30) are configured to change the source of the power to one or more energy storage devices (10) (Para. [0053]) onboard the vehicle (1) and to stop receiving the power from the conductive pathway (16) during travel of the vehicle in the autonomous power supply zone (22) (Para. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to change the source of the power to a battery onboard the vehicle, as taught by Barlini, in order to provide continuous power to the traction unit during the phase break, without the need to idle electrical subsystems to reduce current load in the phase break (see Marra, Col. 3, lines 48-52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 11: Marra in view of Barlini, as applied to claim 8, further teaches the system, wherein the controller (30) is configured to control the responsive device (36) to change the source of the power back to the conductive pathway after the vehicle exits the phase break (Col. 3, lines 53-62).
Referring to Claim 12: Marra does not specifically teach monitoring for a drop in current to determine the location of the phase break. However, Barlini teaches an electrical power supply system for an electrically propelled vehicle, comprising a current sensor (11) monitoring for a drop in current to determine a location of a phase break (Para. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to use a current sensor to monitor for a drop in current to determine the location of a phase break, as taught by Barlini, in order to detect phase breaks and provide continuous power to the traction unit during the phase break, without the need to idle electrical subsystems to reduce current load in the phase break (see Marra, Col. 3, lines 48-52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 19: Marra teaches a system, wherein the responsive device (36) is configured to change the source of the power for the one or more loads from the collector device (16)
As noted by strikethrough above, Marra does not specifically teach changing the source of the power to one or more energy storage devices onboard the vehicle. However, Barlini teaches an electrical power supply system for an electrically propelled vehicle, wherein the controller (12) and a diode (30) are configured to change the source of the power to one or more energy storage devices (10) (Para. [0053]) onboard the vehicle (1) and to stop receiving the power from the conductive pathway (16) during travel of the vehicle in the autonomous power supply zone (22) (Para. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to change the source of the power to a battery onboard the vehicle, as taught by Barlini, in order to provide continuous power to the traction unit during the phase break, without the need to idle electrical subsystems to reduce current load in the phase break (see Marra, Col. 3, lines 48-52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 21: Marra in view of Barlini, as applied to claim 1, further teaches, wherein the vehicle comprises a collector device (16) configured to receive power from the conductive pathway (20) (Fig. 1), and the responsive device (36) comprises at least one of the following:
a switch (“circuit breaker”) positioned proximate to the collector device (16) of the vehicle (10) (Fig. 1) (Col. 3, lines 41-52); and
an actuator configured to move the collector device in at least one direction relative to the conductive pathway.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra in view of Barlini and McSparran et al. (US 4,301,899).
Referring to Claim 6: Marra does not specifically teach that the phase break includes an interface between sections of the route having the conductive pathway conducting different phases of alternating current. However, McSparran teaches a system for automatically controlling an electrically propelled traction vehicle traversing a gap in a wayside source of power, wherein the phase break (14) includes an interface between sections of the route having the conductive pathway (13a, 13b) conducting different phases of alternating current (Col. 5, lines 11-38) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to use an AC conductive pathway with a phase break interface, as taught by McSparran, in order to adapt the vehicle to more diverse power sources (McSparran, Col. 1, lines 53-62).
Referring to Claim 7: Marra does not specifically teach that the phase break includes an interface between sections of the route having the conductive pathway conducting different voltages of direct current relative to each other. However, McSparran teaches, “For example, d-c and a-c sources might be mixed on a given railroad line, or adjacent sections of a totally d-c line might have different voltage magnitudes” (Col. 1, lines 62-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to use a total DC line having different voltage magnitudes on each side of the phase break, as taught by McSparran, in order to adapt the vehicle to more diverse power sources (McSparran, Col. 1, lines 53-62).
Referring to Claim 14: Marra does not specifically teach adapting the vehicle to a different direct current voltage as at least part of the change in the source of power. However, McSparran teaches, “If adjacent sections of the wayside conductor are energized by sources having different voltage magnitudes, the vehicle's power conditioning means should also be appropriately adjusted or reconnected before the propulsion system is repowered so as to avoid damage in the event the transition has been from a low voltage section to a high voltage section of the conductor.” (Col. 2, lines 23-30). McSparran further teaches, “For example, d-c and a-c sources might be mixed on a given railroad line, or adjacent sections of a totally d-c line might have different voltage magnitudes” (Col. 1, lines 62-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to use a total DC line having different voltage magnitudes on each side of the phase break, as taught by McSparran, in order to adapt the vehicle to more diverse power sources (McSparran, Col. 1, lines 53-62).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra in view of Barlini and Peltz et al. (US 2005/0240322 A1).
Referring to Claim 13: While Marra teaches communicating over the train line to other vehicles (Col. 3, lines 1-4), Marra does not specifically teach communicating a location of a phase break from the vehicle to another vehicle on the route. However, However, Peltz teaches an automatic neutral section control system, including communicating a location of a phase break (26) from the vehicle to another vehicle on the route (Para. [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to communicate the location of the phase break to another vehicle, as taught by Peltz, in order to increase information throughout the system and notify other locomotives of an approaching phase break with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra in view of McSparran.
Referring to Claim 17: Marra does not specifically teach that the phase break includes an interface between sections of the route having the conductive pathway conducting different phases of alternating current. However, McSparran teaches a system for automatically controlling an electrically propelled traction vehicle traversing a gap in a wayside source of power, wherein the phase break (14) includes an interface between sections of the route having the conductive pathway (13a, 13b) conducting different phases of alternating current (Col. 5, lines 11-38) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to use an AC conductive pathway with a phase break interface, as taught by McSparran, in order to adapt the vehicle to more diverse power sources (McSparran, Col. 1, lines 53-62).
Referring to Claim 18: Marra does not specifically teach that the phase break includes an interface between sections of the route having the conductive pathway conducting different voltages of direct current relative to each other. However, McSparran teaches, “For example, d-c and a-c sources might be mixed on a given railroad line, or adjacent sections of a totally d-c line might have different voltage magnitudes” (Col. 1, lines 62-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to use a total DC line having different voltage magnitudes on each side of the phase break, as taught by McSparran, in order to adapt the vehicle to more diverse power sources (McSparran, Col. 1, lines 53-62).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra in view of Peltz et al. (US 2005/0240322 A1).
Referring to Claim 20: Marra does not specifically teach that the controller is configured to change the source of power by initiating movement of the collector device away from the conductive pathway. However, Peltz teaches an automatic neutral section control system, wherein the controller (78) is configured to change the source of power by initiating movement of the collector device (24) away from the conductive pathway (Para. [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Marra to change the source of power by initiating movement of the collector device away from the conductive pathway, as taught by Peltz, in order to avoid contact between the pantograph and the phase break and thereby serve a circuit breaking function between the vehicle and the catenary with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that there is insufficient analysis regarding US 11,701,970 (“Patent ‘970”) according to MPEP § 804, which requires an anticipation and/or obviousness analysis. Examiner responds that the claims of Patent ‘970 fully encompass the instant claims, including items such as a vehicle, phase breaks along a route, a processor, location determination, location detectors, estimated arrival times, etc., with the exception of the instant claims reciting a responsive device (as amended) and one or both of a switch and an actuator (as previously recited). However, using a responsive device (i.e., switch or actuator), in combination with a controller (i.e., processor), to disconnect the vehicle from the conductive pathway while travelling through a phase break is known in the prior art (see Marra, circuit breaker 36, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 41-62). The obviousness analysis is as follows, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the patented claims to use the circuit breaker of Marra as a responsive device to disconnect the vehicle from the conductive pathway while travelling through a phase break because “[t]his provides appropriate isolation of the sectionalized electrified conductors from each other and prevents damage to the electrical system of the electrified vehicle” (Marra, Col. 1, lines 24-26). In other words, instead of a processor engaging dynamic braking when entering a phase break (Patent ‘970), it would have been obvious, in view of Marra, to have a responsive device change a power source when entering a phase break, i.e., switch to a battery at the phase break instead of dynamic braking. Thus, the instant claims are obvious in view of Patent ‘970 and Marra and properly rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting.
Regarding the anticipation rejection, Applicant argues that Marra fails to teach controlling a responsive device based at least in part on an arrival time of a vehicle at a location of a phase break because Marra fails to explicitly disclose determining an arrival time. Examiner responds that, as cited in the rejection, Marra teaches the following, “One way of accurately determining when the following electrified vehicles enter the neutral section 24 is to initiate a counter and use the sensor 42 to actually determine when the specific remote vehicles are in the neutral section 24. It will then transmit commands to the remote vehicles at the appropriate time of their entering the neutral section 24 to shut down their idle subsystems, as well as to open their main circuit breaker 36.” (Col. 4, lines 31-38). Marra’s sensor 42 is an onboard tachometer providing distance over time data, i.e., speed (Col. 2, lines 58-61) (Fig. 2). This tachometer speed data is used, at least in part (see Col. 4, lines 53-56), to accurately determine when the electrified vehicle enters the neutral section. Determining when a vehicle on a route arrives at a certain point based on speed data inherently involves an arrival time calculation even though Marra does not explicitly use the term “arrival time.”
Regarding the anticipation rejection, Applicant further argues that Marra fails to teach changing the source of power prior from the conductive pathway to an energy storage device onboard the vehicle prior to the vehicle reaching the location of the phase break. Examiner acknowledges that while Marra teaches changing the power source prior to reaching the phase break, Marra does not teach changing to an onboard battery. Marra teaches disconnecting the circuit breaker 36 prior to arrival at the neutral section 24 (Col. 4, lines 34-38), which may be reasonably interpreted as “changing” the power source, but Marra has no teaching of an energy storage device onboard the vehicle, i.e., an onboard battery. However, Barlini teaches such an onboard battery, and the amended claims are now rejected as being obvious in view of Barlini, as recited above.
Regarding the obviousness rejection, Applicant argues that Barlini fails to cure the deficiency of Marra because Barlini teaches changing the power of the vehicle to the autonomous power supply device subsequent to the vehicle reaching the autonomous power supply zone. Examiner responds that pointing out Barlini’s power source change having a different timing amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the references. Marra already teaches disconnecting the circuit breaker 36 prior to arrival at the neutral section 24 (Col. 4, lines 34-38). Barlini is being used to teach the act of changing the power source from the conductive pathway to an autonomous power supply device, i.e., onboard battery (Para. [0053]). Barlini is not being used to teach the exact timing of that change. Thus, in combination Marra and Barlini suggest changing to an onboard battery power source (Barlini) prior to arrival at the neutral section (Marra).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights