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 § 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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2004/0133315 A1) in view of Mari (US 2008/0121136 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Kumar teaches a hybrid propulsion system for a locomotive, the hybrid propulsion system comprising:
ground engaging elements associated with the locomotive (2100) (Fig. 21);
a prime mover (2102) for powering propulsion of the ground engaging elements;
a traction motor (2108, 2110) associated with the ground engaging elements (Para. [0157]);
a battery (2128) associated with the traction motor (Para. [0159]) (Fig. 21);
a controller (2112) including a route dataset (2114) having a topography of a route of the locomotive, the controller configured to:
analyze the topography of the route and location of the locomotive (Para. [0061] and [0159]);
identify when the locomotive enters a geofence area (Para. [0155]); and
As noted by strikethrough above, Kumar fails to specifically teach a boost mode. However, Mari teaches a hybrid locomotive and method of operating the same, wherein the controller (40) is configured to activate a boost mode (claim 45) to discharge an electric energy stored in the battery (28) to the traction motor (20) to boost a tractive force of the ground engaging elements (12) (Fig. 3) (Para. [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kumar to configure the controller with a boost mode, as taught by Mari, in order to “boost tractive effort during starting conditions, high uphill gradients, and also heavy-haul conditions (Mari, Para. [0024]),” with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: Kumar further teaches the hybrid propulsion system of claim 1, wherein the locomotive (2100) is a train and the prime mover is a diesel engine (2102) (Para. [0157]) (Fig. 21).
Referring to Claim 6: Kumar further teaches the hybrid propulsion system of claim 1, wherein the route dataset (2114) includes characteristics of the locomotive (Para. [0044]), the route of the locomotive (Para. [0045]), and the topography of the route (Para. [0061] and [0159]).
Referring to Claim 7: Kumar further teaches the hybrid propulsion system of claim 1, further comprising a GPS device in communication with the controller (2112), the GPS device providing real-time location of the locomotive (2100) (Para. [0063] and [0155]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Mari and Barbee et al. (US 2013/0167752 A1).
Referring to Claim 2: Kumar does not specifically teach a display interface in communication with the controller for manually selecting the activation or deactivation of the boost mode. However, Barbee teaches a battery-powered all-electric and/or hybrid locomotive and related locomotive and train configuration, wherein “the operator cabin 310 may be equipped with a Locomotive Engineer Assist Display/Event Recorder ® (LEADER) or similar electronic system adapted to monitor and adjust the operating conditions of the battery-operated, all-electric locomotive 300. In addition to the usual information displayed on the LEADER screen (e.g., train speed, acceleration, and track conditions), battery status information and related adjustment suggestions or alerts may also be displayed to a train operator.” (Para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kumar to use a display interface in communication with the controller for manually selecting the activation or deactivation of the boost mode, such as the display taught by Barbee, in order to conveniently allow the operator to manually control locomotive equipment, with adjustment suggestions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 3: Kumar teaches operation optimization on the train level, consist level and locomotive level (Fig. 15) (Para. [0135]), but does not specifically teach the locomotive being connected to a plurality of second locomotives, each locomotive having a second battery, second ground engaging elements, and a second controller; and the controller is further configured to communicate the boost mode simultaneously with the second controller to consume a second electric energy stored in the second battery in each second locomotive to boost a tractive force of the second ground engaging elements in uniform with the ground engaging elements of the locomotive. However, Barbee teaches a battery-powered all-electric and/or hybrid locomotive and related locomotive and train configuration, wherein a diesel-electric locomotive may be paired with a battery toting locomotive (1004) (Para. [0079]) (Fig. 10a) or other locomotives of a similar hybrid-type or all-electric type (Para. [0080]) (10b) to provide additional traction power to the diesel engine through the battery system (Para. [0081]), wherein an operator cabin (310) enables the train operator to control the train components remotely through computer monitoring (Para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kumar to use multiple locomotives with respective controllers to coordinate a tractive force boost, as taught by Barbee, in order to provide additional traction when needed, through coordinated energy transfer, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Mari and Shubs Jr. et al. (US 2017/0106883 A1).
Referring to Claim 4: Kumar does not specifically teach an off-board network and a remote in communication with the controller, wherein the off-board network continuously updates the controller in real time. However, Shubs teaches a machine asset management system having a user interface, comprising an off-board network (70) and a remote (82) (Para. [0030]) (Fig. 3) in communication with the controller (68) (Fig. 2), wherein the off-board network continuously updates the controller in real time (Para. [0027] and [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kumar to use an off-board network and remote in communication with the controller, as taught by Shubs, in order to provide the most up-to-date information regarding every train and asset in the network (see Shubs, Para. [0035]), and thereby enable more efficient control of the train network with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the hybrid locomotive of claims 8-14, note that the hybrid propulsion system of claims 1-7 installed in a locomotive with a frame, as taught in the rejection of claims 1-7 above, inherently requires the hybrid locomotive as claimed.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 15-20, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1-4 and 6-7, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
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