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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under provisional Application No. 63/185,183, filed on 05/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (CN 202911485 U, provided with translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches (Fig. 1-2): A vehicle frame assembly (Fig. 1-2), comprising: a frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below) extending between a first end and a second end along a first axis (annotated Fig. 2 below), the first end of the frame bar operably coupled with a first guide assembly (damping block 5 and connecting rod 41) extending between the first end of the frame bar and a third end of an axle (annotated Fig. 2 below), the second end of the frame bar operably coupled with a second guide assembly (5, 41) extending between the second end of the frame bar and a fourth end of the axle (annotated Fig. 2 below); a first housing (annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to be operably coupled with a frame of a vehicle system (vehicle frame)(para. 0010); a second housing (annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the vehicle system (vehicle frame); a first actuator system (left hydraulic cylinder 31; Fig. 2) configured to be operably coupled with and extend between the first housing and the frame bar at a first location of the frame bar along the first axis (annotated Fig. 2 below); and a second actuator system (right hydraulic cylinder 31; Fig. 2) configured to be operably coupled with and extend between the second housing and the frame bar at a second location of the frame bar along the first axis (annotated Fig. 2 below), the first actuator system and the second actuator system (31) configured to control rotational movement of the frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below) between a first direction of rotation and a second direction of rotation (the hydraulic cylinders guide the rotation of the connecting rod that is hinged on the vehicle frame; para. 0010-0011; Fig. 1-2), wherein rotating the frame bar in the first direction (upward direction) of rotation moves the axle (11) away from a route (rail) along which the vehicle system is configured to move, and rotating the frame bar in the second direction (downward direction) of rotation moves the axle (11) toward the route (rail)(para. 0002; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Wei further teaches (Fig. 1-2): a first guide wheel (left guide wheel 2) disposed at the third end of the axle (annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second guide wheel (right guide wheel 2) disposed at the fourth end of the axle (annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the first and second actuator systems (31) are configured to rotate the frame bar in the first direction (upward direction) of rotation to move the first and second guide wheels (2) away from the route (Fig. 1-2), and the first and second actuator systems (31) are configured to rotate the frame bar in the second direction (downward direction) of rotation to move the first and second guide wheels (2) toward the route (para. 0002; Fig. 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 202911485 U, provided with translation).
Regarding claim 2, Wei further teaches (Fig. 1-2): one or more of the frame bar, the axle (11), the first housing, the second housing, the first guide assembly (5, 41), and the second guide assembly (5, 41)(annotated Fig. 2 below), but does not explicitly teach that the frame components are manufactured of one or more steel alloys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the vehicle frame components with steel (i.e. the frame bar, axle, housings, and guide assemblies), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07. Manufacturing the vehicle frame components with steel would provide increased durability and load capacity, since steel is a material with high strength-to-weight ratio and reliable performance under extreme stress.
Claim(s) 4, 7-10, 12-15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 202911485 U, provided with translation), in view of Mascola (US 10773562 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Wei further teaches (Fig. 1-2): the first actuator system (left cylinder 31) and the second actuator system (right cylinder 31), but does not explicitly teach that the first and second actuator systems include a first electric actuator device and a second electric actuator device, respectively.
However, Mascola teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3): a primary hydraulic actuator (230) for repositioning the rail gear (10) from on-road to on-rail positions and vice versa is powered with a small electrically driven hydraulic pump (col. 6, lines 14-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to include use electrically driven hydraulic pumps with the hydraulic actuator system, as disclosed by Mascola, with a reasonable expectation of success because a hydraulic cylinder that has an electrically actuated pump offers high force density, precise control, and faster automated, or remote operation compared to manual systems.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the first actuator system (31) includes a first linkage component (annotated Fig. 2 below) and the first electric actuator device, the first electric actuator device including a first extension component (annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): a first portion (top portion) of the first linkage component is configured to be operably coupled with the first extension component (annotated Fig. 2 below), and a second portion (bottom portion) of the first linkage component is configured to be operably coupled with the frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the second actuator system (31) includes a second linkage component (annotated Fig. 2 below) and the second electric actuator device, the second electric actuator device including a second extension component (annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): a first portion (top portion) of the second linkage component is configured to be operably coupled with the second extension component (annotated Fig. 2 below), and a second portion (bottom portion) of the second linkage component is configured to be operably coupled with the frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 12, Wei teaches (Fig. 1-2): A hi-rail vehicle system (Fig. 1-2), comprising: a hi-rail vehicle (para. 0010) including a frame (vehicle frame) extending between a first end and a second end (para. 0010); a first vehicle frame assembly configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle, the first vehicle frame assembly comprising a first frame bar extending between a third end and a fourth end along a first axis, the first vehicle frame assembly including first and second actuator systems configured to be operably coupled with the first frame bar and configured to control rotational movement of the first frame bar; the first and second actuator systems configured to rotate the first frame bar in a first direction of rotation or a second direction of rotation to change a state of a first axle operably coupled with the first frame bar (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Wei does not explicitly teach that the first vehicle frame assembly is coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle proximate the first end of the frame; and a second vehicle frame assembly with the same components as the first vehicle frame assembly that is coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle proximate the second end of the frame.
However, Mascola teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3): a first vehicle frame assembly (front rail gear unit 10) is coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle (12) proximate the first end of the frame (Fig. 1); and a second vehicle frame assembly (rear rail gear unit 10) with the same components as the first vehicle frame assembly that is coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle (12) proximate the second end of the frame (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to include two vehicle frame assemblies, one coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle proximate a first end of the frame, and another coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle proximate a second end of the frame, as disclosed by Mascola, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the hi-rail vehicle to have rail-engaging wheels on both ends of the vehicle, allowing the guide wheels of the vehicle frame assembly to engage the rails without overloading the rail gear (Mascola, col. 2, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the first vehicle frame assembly further comprising a first housing configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle and the first actuator system (31)(annotated Fig. 2 below), and a second housing configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle and the second actuator system (31)(annotated Fig. 2 below), the second vehicle frame assembly further comprising a third housing configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle and the third actuator system, and a fourth housing configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the hi-rail vehicle and the fourth actuator system (the second vehicle frame assembly has the same components as the first vehicle frame assembly; annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the first housing is configured to be operably coupled with the first frame bar via the first actuator system (31)(annotated Fig. 2 below), and the second housing is configured to be operably coupled with the first frame bar via the second actuator system (31)(annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the third housing is configured to be operably coupled with the second frame bar via the third actuator system, and the fourth housing is configured to be operably coupled with the second frame bar via the fourth actuator system (the second vehicle frame assembly has the same components as the first vehicle frame assembly; annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): one or more of the first frame bar, the first axle, the first housing, the second housing, the second frame bar, the second axle, the third housing, and the fourth housing (annotated Fig. 2 below), but does not explicitly teach that they are manufactured of one or more steel alloys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the vehicle frame components with steel (i.e. the frame bar, axle, and housings), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07. Manufacturing the vehicle frame components with steel would provide increased durability and load capacity, since steel is a material with high strength-to-weight ratio and reliable performance under extreme stress.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the first actuator system includes a first electric actuator device (31), the second actuator system includes a second electric actuator device (31)(annotated Fig. 2 below), the third actuator system includes a third electric actuator device, and the fourth actuator system includes a fourth electric actuator device (the second vehicle frame assembly has the same components as the first vehicle frame assembly; annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wei and Mascola further teaches (Fig. 1-2 of Wei): the hi-rail vehicle is configured to operate as a non-rail vehicle responsive to the first frame bar and the second frame bar rotating in the first direction of rotation (upward direction), and the hi-rail vehicle is configured to operate as a rail vehicle responsive to the first frame bar and the second frame bar rotating in the second direction of rotation (downward direction)(para. 0002; Fig. 1-2).
Claim(s) 5-6, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 202911485 U, provided with translation), in view of Mascola (US 10773562 B2) and Kashiwase et al. (US 6352035 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Wei does not explicitly teach that the first electric actuator device includes a first energy storage device configured to provide power to the first electric actuator device, and the second electric actuator device includes a second energy storage device configured to provide power to the second electric actuator device.
However, Kashiwase teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 6): an electric actuator device (hydraulic pumps) for repositioning a rail gear include an energy storage device (battery) configured to provide power to the first electric actuator device (vehicle battery powers the electric motors to drive the hydraulic pumps; col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to include energy storage devices to power the hydraulic pumps of the first and second electric actuator devices, as disclosed by Kashiwase, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the vehicle system has sufficient backup power to complete the frame bar rotation in case the main power source of the vehicle fails.
Regarding claim 6, Wei does not explicitly teach that the first and second electric actuator devices are configured to receive power from the vehicle system.
However, Kashiwase teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 6): an electric actuator device (hydraulic pumps) for repositioning a rail gear include an energy storage device (battery) configured to provide power to the first electric actuator device (vehicle battery powers the electric motors to drive the hydraulic pumps; col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to power the hydraulic pumps of the first and second electric actuator devices with the vehicle system (i.e. the electric motors and battery), as disclosed by Kashiwase, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the vehicle system is self-sufficient to power the actuator devices without external energy input.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wei and Mascola teaches: the first, second, third, and fourth electric actuator devices (31), but does not explicitly teach that one or more of the first, second, third, and fourth electric actuator devices are configured to receive power from the hi-rail vehicle.
However, Kashiwase teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 6): an electric actuator device (hydraulic pumps) for repositioning a rail gear include an energy storage device (vehicle battery) configured to provide power to the first electric actuator device (vehicle battery powers the electric motors to drive the hydraulic pumps; col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to power the electric actuator devices with power from the hi-rail vehicle, as disclosed by Kashiwase, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the vehicle is self-sufficient to complete the frame bar rotation without an external power source.
Regarding claim 20, Wei teaches (Fig. 1-2): A rail-gear for a hi-rail vehicle (Fig. 1-2), comprising: a frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below) extending between a first end and a second end along a first axis (annotated Fig. 2 below), the first end of the frame bar configured to be operably coupled with a first guide assembly (5, 41) extending between the first end of the frame bar and a third end of an axle (annotated Fig. 2 below), the second end of the frame bar configured to be operably coupled with a second guide assembly (5, 41) extending between the second end of the frame bar and a fourth end of the axle (annotated Fig. 2 below); a first housing (annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to be operably coupled with a frame of a hi-rail vehicle (para. 0010); a first actuator system (31) configured to be operably coupled with the first housing and the frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below); a second housing configured to be operably coupled with the frame of the hi- rail vehicle (para. 0010); and a second actuator system (31) configured to be operably coupled with the second housing and the frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), and the first and second actuator systems (31) configured to control rotational movement of the frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below) between a first direction of rotation and a second direction of rotation (the hydraulic cylinders guide the rotation of the connecting rod that is hinged on the vehicle frame; para. 0010-0011) about the first axis (Fig. 1-2), wherein rotating the frame bar in the first direction of rotation (upward direction) moves the axle (11) away from a route (rail) along which the hi-rail vehicle is configured to move, and rotating the frame bar in the second direction of rotation (downward direction) moves the axle (11) toward the route (rail)(para. 0002; Fig. 1-2).
Wei teaches (Fig. 1-2): the first actuator system (left cylinder 31) and the second actuator system (right cylinder 31), but does not explicitly teach that the first and second actuator systems include a first electric actuator device and a second electric actuator device, respectively.
However, Mascola teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3): a primary hydraulic actuator (230) for repositioning the rail gear (10) from on-road to on-rail positions and vice versa is powered with a small electrically driven hydraulic pump (col. 6, lines 14-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to include use electrically driven hydraulic pumps with the hydraulic actuator system, as disclosed by Mascola, with a reasonable expectation of success because a hydraulic cylinder that has an electrically actuated pump offers high force density, precise control, and faster automated, or remote operation compared to manual systems.
Wei teaches: the first and second actuator devices (31), but does not explicitly teach that the first and second actuator devices are configured to receive power from the hi-rail vehicle.
However, Kashiwase teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 6): an electric actuator device (hydraulic pumps) for repositioning a rail gear include an energy storage device (vehicle battery) configured to provide power to the first electric actuator device (vehicle battery powers the electric motors to drive the hydraulic pumps; col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to power the electric actuator devices with power from the hi-rail vehicle, as disclosed by Kashiwase, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the vehicle is self-sufficient to complete the frame bar rotation without an external power source.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 202911485 U, provided with translation), in view of Mascola (US 10773562 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Wei teaches (Fig. 1-2): a frame bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), but does not explicitly teach a locking device configured to be operably coupled with the frame bar, the locking device configured to maintain a rotational position of the frame bar.
However, Mascola teaches an alternate vehicle frame system, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 9): a locking device (rail gear positional lock assembly) is configured to be operably coupled with the frame bar (pivot tube 160), the locking device configured to maintain a rotational position of the frame bar (col. 6, line 29 – col. 7, line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Wei to include a locking device for maintaining a rotational position of the frame bar, as disclosed by Mascola, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the rail wheels are locked in engagement with the rails, or lifted and secured into non-engagement with the rails.
PNG
media_image2.png
746
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a vehicle frame system or a rail gear for a vehicle: US-3980025-A, US-4534297-A, US-6298792-B1, US-20170151847-A1, US-20180370309-A1, US-10427697-B2, US-10625548-B2, US-20210061035-A1, US-20210086574-A1, US-12275284-B2, FR-2838675-A1, CN-202944164-U, CN-108032691-A, CN-109455046-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615