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 . 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.
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) 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirtz (US 4,881,469).
Referring to Claim 1: Hirtz discloses a transportation system comprising:
a first passageway (1) and a second passageway (5) arranged in a side-by-side configuration (Fig. 12);
a first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) for moving a first capsule (15) within the first passageway; and
a second propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) for moving a second capsule (15) within the second passageway, the second propulsion system being integral with the first propulsion system (Fig. 12) (Col. 8, lines 21-35).
Referring to Claim 2: Hirtz discloses the transportation system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) and the second propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) includes a linear induction motor (Col. 2, lines 35-36) (Col. 5, lines 56-61).
Referring to Claim 3: Hirtz discloses the transportation system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) includes a first stationary portion (10, 34) and the second propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) includes a second stationary portion (10, 34), and a stationary propulsion element (34) is shared between the first stationary portion and the second stationary portion (Fig. 12) (Col. 8, lines 21-35).
Referring to Claim 7: Hirtz discloses the transportation system of claim 1, wherein the first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) includes a first stationary propulsion element (10) and a common stationary propulsion element (34) separated from one another by a first clearance (Fig. 12), and the second propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) includes a second stationary propulsion element (10) and the common stationary propulsion element (34) separated from one another by a second clearance (Fig. 12) (Col. 8, lines 21-35).
Referring to Claim 8: Hirtz discloses the transportation system of claim 7, wherein the first stationary propulsion element (10), the common stationary propulsion element (34), and the second stationary propulsion element (10) are stacked along an axis (Fig. 12).
Referring to Claim 10: Hirtz discloses the transportation system of claim 7, wherein the first stationary propulsion element (10), the second stationary propulsion element (10), and the common stationary propulsion element (34) are arranged between the first passageway (1) and the second passageway (5) (Fig. 12).
Referring to Claim 12: Hirtz discloses the transportation system of claim 7, wherein a movable portion (16) of the first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) is mounted to the first capsule (15) and is receivable within the first clearance between the first stationary propulsion element (10) and the common stationary propulsion element (34) and a movable portion (16) of the second propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) is mounted to the second capsule (15) and is receivable within the second clearance between the common stationary propulsion element (34) and the second stationary propulsion element (10) (Fig. 12).
Referring to Claim 14: Hirtz discloses a method of driving a first capsule (15) within a first passageway (1) and a second capsule (15) within a second passageway (5), the first passageway and the second passageway having a side-by-side configuration (Fig. 12), the method comprising:
selectively energizing at least one stationary propulsion element (12) of a first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) for driving the first capsule; and
selectively energizing at least one stationary propulsion element for driving the second capsule (Col. 2, lines 35-36) (Col. 5, lines 56-61), wherein at least a portion (34) of the first propulsion system is integral with the second propulsion system (Fig. 12) (Col. 8, lines 21-35).
Referring to Claim 15: Hirtz discloses the method of claim 14, wherein selectively energizing at least one stationary propulsion element (12) of the first propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) for driving the first capsule (15) further comprises selectively energizing at least one of a first stationary propulsion element (drive rail 12 attached to outer post 10) and a common stationary propulsion element (drive rail 12 attached to common wall 34).
Referring to Claim 16: Hirtz discloses the method of claim 15, wherein selectively energizing at least one stationary propulsion element (12) of the second propulsion system (10, 11, 12, 34) for driving the second capsule further comprises selectively energizing at least the second stationary propulsion element for driving the second capsule and the common stationary propulsion element (Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 3) (Col. 8, lines 21-25).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirtz in view of Oster (US 2014/0261054 A1).
Referring to Claim 9: Hirtz does not specifically teach that the first stationary propulsion element, the second stationary propulsion element, and the common stationary propulsion element are arranged in vertical alignment.
However, Oster teaches an evacuated tube transport system with interchange capability, wherein the first stationary propulsion element (105), the second stationary propulsion element (105), and the common stationary propulsion element (105) are arranged in vertical alignment (Fig. 1) (Para. [0062]) and other various configurations where the tubes are arranged horizontally or vertically (Figs. 6a-6c) (Para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hirtz to use a vertical alignment of the tubes and propulsion elements, as taught by O’Neill, because it is known to use various configurations to “avoid an obstacle such as an overpass, or to enable the system to fit within a tunnel” (Oster, Para. [0068]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirtz in view of O’Neill (US 5,282,424).
Referring to Claim 11: While Hirtz teaches drive rails (12) that form a linear induction motor (Col. 2, lines 35-36) (Col. 5, lines 56-61), Hirtz does not specifically teach that at least one of the first stationary propulsion element and the second stationary propulsion element includes an array of windings.
However, O’Neill teaches a high speed transport system, wherein at least one of the first stationary propulsion element (82) and the second stationary propulsion element (84)includes an array of windings (Col. 10, lines 23-68) (Figs. 4 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hirtz to compose the drive rails of an array of windings, as taught by O’Neill, in order to provide sufficient acceleration and symmetrical driving forces with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 13 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4 and depending claims 5 and 6, the prior art fails to teach that “the stationary propulsion element includes a core having at least one set of windings mounted about the core, the at least one array of windings being operable as part of both the first stationary portion and the second stationary portion,” as recited in claim 4. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this manner.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to teach that “the common stationary propulsion element is operable to drive the first capsule and the second capsule simultaneously.” Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this manner.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to teach that “the common stationary propulsion element includes an array of windings and at least one winding of the array of windings is selectively energized to drive the first capsule and at least one other winding of the array of windings is selectively energized to drive the second capsule, the first capsule and the second capsule being driven simultaneously.” Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this manner.
Regarding claim 18 and depending claim 19, the prior art fails to teach “identifying a passing location at both the first passageway and the second passageway where the first capsule and the second capsule will pass one another,” as recited in claim 18. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this manner.
Conclusion
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 3615A