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 08/25/2023 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 1-2 and 4-21 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 1: INCONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY AND ANTECEDENT BASIS — “MATER DRIVE MOTOR” VS. “MASTER DRIVE MOTOR” (CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 6, 7)
Claim 1 introduces “a mater drive motor” fixedly mounted on the electric locomotive and then uses “the mater drive motor” as the comparator torque reference and as the cooperating motor.
However, claim 2 then recites “the master drive motor” in the torque ratio limitation, and claims 5 and 6 similarly recite “the master drive motor” in the electrical connection limitations, without clearly establishing antecedent basis in claim 1 for “master drive motor.”
This inconsistency renders the scope unclear because it is uncertain whether “mater drive motor” and “master drive motor” refer to the same motor or to different motors.
The lack of clear antecedent basis for “the master drive motor” in claim 2 (and its dependents) further contributes to indefiniteness because the reader cannot determine with reasonable certainty what element is being compared and electrically connected.
ISSUE 2: ANTECEDENT BASIS / REFERENT AMBIGUITY — “THE MUCK TRUCK” (CLAIM 1)
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of muck trucks” and then later states that “the slave drive motor cooperates with the mater drive motor, to enable the muck truck to travel on rails …”.
Because claim 1 introduces a plurality of muck trucks, the later reference to “the muck truck” introduces ambiguity as to which muck truck is being enabled to travel on rails (for example, whether it is each muck truck of the plurality, only the “at least one” muck truck that has the slave drive motor mounted thereon, or some other muck truck).
Accordingly, the scope of the cooperation and the associated functional result is unclear.
ISSUE 3: RESULT-ORIENTED / RELATIVE LANGUAGE WITHOUT CLEAR BOUNDARIES — “REDUCE DRIVE POWER AND SELF-WEIGHT” (CLAIM 1)
Claim 1 states that the slave drive motor cooperates with the mater drive motor “to … reduce drive power and self-weight of the electric locomotive.” It is unclear what baseline is being used for “reduce,” and it is unclear what objective boundaries determine when “drive power” and “self-weight” are “reduced” for purposes of claim scope.
To the extent this language is intended to be a limiting functional requirement (as opposed to an intended advantage), the claim does not provide reasonable certainty regarding the degree or manner of “reduction” required, and therefore the scope is indefinite.
ISSUE 4: GRAMMATICAL INCOMPLETENESS — CLAIM 20
Claim 20 recites: “wherein the end plate of the concave chassis fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie through a bogie attachment seat.”
This limitation appears to be missing a verb (for example, “is”), rendering the limitation grammatically incomplete and therefore unclear in scope.
As written, it is not stated with reasonable certainty how the end plate is mounted relative to the muck truck bogie and/or the bogie attachment seat.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1
CN 213413765 U (published/issued June 11, 2021), titled in translation “Energy-saving power adjustable tunnel construction battery car”
REFERENCE 2
CN 211107434 U (published/issued July 28, 2020), titled in translation “Shield construction muck car”
REFERENCE 3
US 2005/0189887 A1 (published Sep. 1, 2005) Donnelly et al., “Managing wheel skid in a locomotive,”
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 AND 5-7: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
CLAIM 1
A power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus, comprising an electric locomotive and a plurality of muck trucks, the electric locomotive and the plurality of muck trucks being connected in sequence, and a mater drive motor being fixedly mounted on the electric locomotive, wherein: a slave drive motor is fixedly mounted on at least one of the muck trucks; a torque of the slave drive motor is smaller than a torque of the mater drive motor; and the slave drive motor cooperates with the mater drive motor, to enable the muck truck to travel on rails and reduce drive power and self-weight of the electric locomotive.
ANALYSIS
With respect to “A power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus, comprising an electric locomotive and a plurality of muck trucks,” Reference 1 discloses a tunnel construction battery car system including a traction car (1) and multiple muck trucks (2) (and other trailing cars), where the traction car (1) corresponds to an electric locomotive and the muck trucks (2) correspond to a plurality of muck trucks.
With respect to “the electric locomotive and the plurality of muck trucks being connected in sequence,” Reference 1 discloses the traction car (1) connected in sequence with trailing cars including muck trucks (2). The sequential coupling is evidenced by the disclosure of “a traction car (1)” followed by “several muck trucks (2)” arranged behind it as a train-like consist for tunnel construction transport.
With respect to “and a mater drive motor being fixedly mounted on the electric locomotive,” Reference 1 discloses a traction motor (6) fixedly installed on the bogie (5) of the traction car (1), with the traction motor (6) driving the traction car wheel axle (8) through a gearbox (7). The fixed installation of traction motor (6) on bogie (5) of traction car (1) corresponds to a master drive motor fixedly mounted on the electric locomotive.
With respect to “a slave drive motor is fixedly mounted on at least one of the muck trucks,” Reference 1 further discloses that one or more of the muck trucks (2) also have a traction motor (6) fixedly installed on their bogies (5), where the traction motor (6) drives the muck truck wheel axle (8) through a gearbox (7). Thus, Reference 1 teaches a slave drive motor (6) mounted on at least one muck truck (2).
With respect to “a torque of the slave drive motor is smaller than a torque of the mater drive motor,” Reference 1 teaches distributed traction motors (6) across the traction car (1) and muck trucks (2), but does not expressly require the slave motor torque be smaller than the traction car motor torque. Reference 3 teaches a locomotive traction system with plural traction motors that are independently controlled by a controller/PLC (3016) via associated power electronics so that power/torque to one traction motor can be reduced while power/torque to another traction motor is maintained at a higher level. Reference 3 expressly teaches reducing power to a first traction motor (e.g., traction motor 1002 and associated electronics such as IGBT 1003 and control) while continuing to provide power “in excess of the reduced power” to at least one other traction motor, which directly corresponds to operating different traction motors at different torque outputs. Applying Reference 3’s known independent control/torque differentiation to Reference 1’s distributed traction motors (6) would have rendered it obvious to configure/operate the muck truck traction motor(s) (slave) at a smaller torque than the traction car traction motor (master), thereby satisfying the claimed torque relationship.
With respect to “the slave drive motor cooperates with the mater drive motor, to enable the muck truck to travel on rails,” Reference 1 teaches that muck trucks (2) include traction motors (6) that drive wheel axles (8) and therefore provide tractive effort to move the muck trucks on rails as part of the consist, in cooperation with the traction car (1) traction motor (6). Further, Reference 3 teaches coordinated control by a controller/PLC (3016) for plural traction motors such that overall traction and wheel behavior are managed as a system. Combining Reference 1 and Reference 3 therefore teaches cooperative operation of the traction car motor(s) and muck truck motor(s) to move the consist on rails.
With respect to “and reduce drive power and self-weight of the electric locomotive,” Reference 1 expressly teaches the design intent and effect of distributing traction power onto trailing muck trucks (2), thereby reducing the need for an oversized traction car (1) (i.e., reducing traction car size/weight and required traction power concentrated at the traction car). Reference 1’s distributed traction arrangement (motors on muck trucks (2) in addition to the traction car (1)) corresponds to reducing the drive power that must be provided solely by the traction car and enabling a lighter traction car design.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Reference 3’s known controller-based independent torque/power control among plural traction motors (e.g., PLC/controller 3016 controlling multiple motors such as 3012-3015 and/or traction motor 1002) into Reference 1’s distributed traction car (1) and muck truck (2) system with multiple traction motors (6), in order to coordinate traction, manage slip/adhesion, and allocate tractive effort among different powered axles/vehicles. This would predictably improve controllability and efficiency of the distributed traction system and would have been a straightforward implementation because Reference 1 already employs powered bogies (5) with motors (6) on multiple vehicles, and Reference 3 provides established techniques to command unequal motor torques (including reducing torque to one motor while maintaining higher torque on another).
CLAIM 2
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the torque of the slave drive motor to the torque of the master drive motor is 0.04-0.23:1.
ANALYSIS
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the distributed traction apparatus with a traction car motor (master) and a muck truck motor (slave), as taught by Reference 1, with torque/power differentiation among motors as taught by Reference 3.
With respect to “a ratio of the torque of the slave drive motor to the torque of the master drive motor is 0.04-0.23:1,” Reference 1 teaches distributing traction motors (6) across the traction car (1) and muck trucks (2) to reduce the traction car’s required size/power concentration, and Reference 3 teaches independently controlling motor power/torque to be different among motors (e.g., reducing power/torque to one motor while providing greater power/torque to another). Once Reference 3’s teaching of unequal torque allocation is applied to Reference 1’s distributed traction system, selecting a particular torque ratio between a slave motor (muck truck motor) and a master motor (traction car motor) would have been a routine design and/or control optimization to achieve a desired balance between (i) assistance provided by the muck truck motor(s), and (ii) limiting weight/cost/energy consumption of the muck truck equipment, while still achieving the overall distributed traction objective emphasized by Reference 1. The claimed numeric range represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (torque allocation ratio) in a system explicitly designed to distribute traction among multiple motors/vehicles.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 2)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and tune the slave-to-master torque ratio as a routine matter of design choice and system calibration when implementing Reference 3’s independent torque control in Reference 1’s distributed traction system, because Reference 1’s purpose is to distribute traction to reduce traction car size/weight/power concentration, and Reference 3 provides the capability to assign different torque outputs to different motors. Establishing a specific ratio within a workable range would have been an expected step to obtain predictable performance (sufficient assist without unnecessarily increasing muck truck motor size and associated mass).
CLAIM 5
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 2, wherein an electrical control system is mounted on the electric locomotive, and the electrical control system, the master drive motor, and the slave drive motor are electrically connected in sequence.
ANALYSIS
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes the distributed traction apparatus with a traction car (electric locomotive) (1), muck trucks (2), traction motors (6), and torque/power differentiation capability as addressed above.
With respect to “an electrical control system is mounted on the electric locomotive,” Reference 1 teaches a traction car (1) that provides the centralized vehicle platform for the train-like consist, and Reference 1 teaches that the muck truck motors (6) are electrically connected to the traction car (1) via cables and control lines, indicating that control electronics are located at least on the traction car (1). Reference 3 expressly teaches that the locomotive’s principal elements are monitored and controlled by a controller such as a programmable logic circuit (PLC) (3016), which coordinates and controls multiple traction motors (e.g., 3012-3015 and/or traction motor systems 2005/2006). Thus, Reference 3 teaches an electrical control system (controller/PLC 3016) mounted on the locomotive.
With respect to “and the electrical control system, the master drive motor, and the slave drive motor are electrically connected in sequence,” Reference 3 teaches the controller/PLC (3016) receiving operator input and controlling power electronics that deliver controlled power to individual traction motors, which inherently requires electrical connections among the controller and each traction motor. Reference 1 teaches that the traction car motor (6) and muck truck motor(s) (6) are electrically connected via cables/control lines to the traction car (1). Therefore, the combined teachings render obvious an arrangement in which a control system on the traction car (electric locomotive) is electrically connected to the traction car motor (master) and also to the muck truck motor(s) (slave) through the train electrical connections.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 5)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Reference 3’s known locomotive controller/PLC architecture (3016) in Reference 1’s distributed traction consist because Reference 1 already requires coordinated operation of multiple traction motors (6) on different vehicles (traction car (1) and muck trucks (2)). Using a locomotive-mounted electrical control system to coordinate those motors would predictably improve traction management and operational safety and would have been a straightforward substitution/addition using known locomotive control architectures.
CLAIM 6
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the electrical control system, the master drive motor, and the slave drive motor are electrically connected in sequence through an electric locomotive frequency-converter cabinet and a muck truck frequency-converter cabinet.
ANALYSIS
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and therefore includes a locomotive-mounted electrical control system coordinating a master motor and at least one slave motor on a muck truck.
With respect to “electrically connected in sequence through an electric locomotive frequency-converter cabinet and a muck truck frequency-converter cabinet,” Reference 1 teaches that the traction motors (6) are AC variable-frequency traction motors and are connected by cables/control lines, indicating the use of variable-frequency drive power electronics to supply and control the traction motors. Reference 3 teaches that for AC traction motors, an inverter circuit is associated with each AC traction motor and that each AC motor may be independently controlled by varying inverter output frequency and/or amplitude. Such inverter/power electronics are the functional equivalent of “frequency-converter” equipment (variable-frequency drive equipment). It would have been obvious to implement the inverter/frequency-converter electronics in cabinet form, with one cabinet located on the traction car (electric locomotive) and another cabinet located on (or assigned to) the muck truck to supply/condition power to the muck truck traction motor and enable independent control, consistent with Reference 3’s teaching of independent control per motor and Reference 1’s teaching that muck truck motors are powered and controlled through electrical connections from the traction car.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 6)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide dedicated variable-frequency power electronics (frequency-converter/inverter equipment) in cabinetized form on the traction car and on the muck truck because Reference 1 uses AC variable-frequency traction motors (6) on both the traction car (1) and muck trucks (2), and Reference 3 teaches associating inverter circuitry with each AC traction motor to permit independent control. Cabinetizing and distributing the power electronics would predictably facilitate installation, cooling, protection, maintainability, and modular control of the respective motors on different vehicles in the consist.
CLAIM 7
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a lithium battery working group is mounted on the electric locomotive and is electrically coupled to the electrical control system, the electric locomotive frequency-converter cabinet, and the muck truck frequency-converter cabinet.
ANALYSIS
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and therefore includes the locomotive and muck truck frequency-converter cabinet arrangement supplying and controlling the traction motors.
With respect to “a lithium battery working group is mounted on the electric locomotive,” Reference 1 is directed to a tunnel construction “battery car” traction system (traction car (1) providing electric traction for the consist), and thus teaches a battery-based electric supply mounted on the traction car (electric locomotive). Reference 3 also teaches that a power source for the traction system may be a battery pack supplying the traction motor systems and controlled by locomotive electronics. While Reference 1 and Reference 3 teach battery-based traction power generally, substituting or selecting a lithium battery working group as the battery chemistry would have been an obvious design choice for an electrically powered traction car because lithium battery systems were well-known for providing high energy density and reduced weight, which aligns with Reference 1’s stated objectives of reducing vehicle weight and energy consumption in a tunnel construction traction system.
With respect to “electrically coupled to the electrical control system, the electric locomotive frequency-converter cabinet, and the muck truck frequency-converter cabinet,” Reference 3 teaches that the battery/power supply is electrically connected to the locomotive controller and the motor power electronics that drive traction motors. Reference 1 teaches electrical connection between the traction car and muck truck motor systems via cables/control lines. Thus, it would have been obvious to electrically couple the traction car’s battery supply (lithium battery working group) to the control system and to the frequency-converter cabinets supplying the traction motors on the traction car and muck truck, because those components require electrical power and the system is expressly an electrically powered traction consist.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 7)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a lithium battery working group on the traction car because the system of Reference 1 is a battery-powered tunnel construction traction car designed to reduce energy consumption and vehicle mass, and lithium battery systems were a known, predictable way to increase energy density and reduce battery mass for electric vehicles. Electrically coupling the battery to the control system and frequency-converter/inverter cabinets is a necessary and predictable implementation detail in any battery-powered variable-frequency traction system, as reflected by Reference 3’s battery-powered traction architecture.
CLAIM 4: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF OFFICIAL NOTICE
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and in further view of Official Notice.
CLAIM 4
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the slave drive motor is a three-phase asynchronous AC variable frequency motor.
ANALYSIS
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes the distributed traction apparatus of claim 1 and the torque relationship/ratio framework addressed above.
With respect to “the slave drive motor is a three-phase asynchronous AC variable frequency motor,” Reference 1 teaches that the traction motor (6) is an AC variable-frequency traction motor installed on muck trucks (2). Reference 3 teaches that the disclosed control and power electronics concepts apply to AC traction motors using inverter circuits associated with each AC motor, which is consistent with variable-frequency AC motor control. Reference 1 and Reference 3 therefore collectively teach an AC variable-frequency traction motor for the muck truck (slave motor).
Reference 1 does not expressly state “three-phase asynchronous.” Official Notice is taken that a common and widely used implementation of an AC variable-frequency traction motor in rail and industrial traction applications is a three-phase AC induction (asynchronous) motor, controlled by a variable-frequency drive/inverter.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 4)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the muck truck AC variable-frequency traction motor (6) of Reference 1 as a three-phase asynchronous (induction) motor because three-phase induction motors are a known, predictable, and robust choice for variable-frequency traction applications, and Reference 1 already requires AC variable-frequency traction motors on muck trucks. Selecting this common motor type would have been a routine engineering choice consistent with Reference 3’s inverter-based control of AC traction motors.
CLAIMS 8-9, 15, 17, AND 19-21: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 (AND OFFICIAL NOTICE WHERE APPLIED)
CLAIM 8
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 6, wherein: the muck truck comprises a muck bucket, a concave chassis, and a muck truck bogie; a bottom of the muck bucket is mounted in a groove of the concave chassis; an end plate of the concave chassis is fixedly mounted on a frame of the muck truck bogie; the muck truck frequency-converter cabinet is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie; a wheel pair of the muck truck bogie is rollably mounted on the rails; and the slave drive motor is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie and is transmissively coupled to the wheel pair of the muck truck bogie.
ANALYSIS
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and therefore includes the traction car (electric locomotive) with control system and frequency-converter cabinet architecture used to control a master motor and a slave motor on at least one muck truck.
With respect to “the muck truck comprises a muck bucket,” Reference 2 teaches a muck truck having a bucket structure (including a large box and a smaller box portion (29) as part of the bucket assembly) mounted to the vehicle, which corresponds to a muck bucket.
With respect to “a concave chassis,” Reference 2 teaches a low-profile, space-optimized vehicle body/chassis architecture including structural members such as first end plate (2), rib plate (3), web plate (4), panel (5), longitudinal beams (9), and side frame plates (13), arranged to reduce height and provide a recessed/space-efficient central region (as reflected by the structural build-up and the described low-profile design). This corresponds to a chassis having a recessed/concave region for accommodating bucket volume while maintaining a low vehicle height.
With respect to “and a muck truck bogie,” Reference 2 teaches a bogie/turning frame (bogie frame 32) supporting the vehicle and wheels/rollers (34), corresponding to a muck truck bogie.
With respect to “a bottom of the muck bucket is mounted in a groove of the concave chassis,” Reference 2 teaches the bucket structure (including the small box portion (29)) arranged with the chassis/body structure to maximize volume while maintaining a low-profile arrangement, which corresponds to placing a lower bucket portion into a recessed/grooved space formed by the chassis structure.
With respect to “an end plate of the concave chassis is fixedly mounted on a frame of the muck truck bogie,” Reference 2 teaches end structural plates (first end plate (2)) and chassis structural members interfacing with the bogie assembly (bogie frame 32) through the body-to-bogie support arrangement including pads (7), upper side bearer (6), top plate (8), and related chassis members. This corresponds to the chassis end structure being fixedly mounted to the bogie frame via a mounting/support structure.
With respect to “the muck truck frequency-converter cabinet is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie,” Reference 3 teaches associating inverter/frequency-converter power electronics with each traction motor to enable independent variable-frequency control. Because Reference 1 teaches the muck truck (2) includes a traction motor (6) on its bogie (5) and is electrically connected to the traction car (1), it would have been obvious to mount the muck-truck-associated inverter/frequency-converter electronics on the muck truck’s bogie frame (i.e., proximate to the traction motor and drivetrain) to reduce cable lengths, improve modularity, and protect/control the traction motor locally. This mounting corresponds to a muck truck frequency-converter cabinet fixedly mounted on the bogie frame.
With respect to “a wheel pair of the muck truck bogie is rollably mounted on the rails,” Reference 2 teaches wheels/rollers (34) mounted on the bogie frame (32) that roll on rails, corresponding to a wheel pair rollably mounted on rails.
With respect to “the slave drive motor is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie and is transmissively coupled to the wheel pair,” Reference 1 expressly teaches that a traction motor (6) is fixedly installed on the muck truck bogie (5) and drives the muck truck wheel axle (8) through a gearbox (7), which is a transmissive coupling to the wheel set. Thus, Reference 1 teaches the slave motor mounted to the bogie structure and transmissively coupled to the wheel pair/axle via drivetrain elements (6, 7, 8).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 8)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference 2’s muck truck chassis/bucket/bogie structural arrangement (e.g., chassis structure with end plate (2) and bogie frame (32) supporting wheels (34)) with Reference 1’s powered muck truck bogie arrangement (traction motor (6) coupled through gearbox (7) to wheel axle (8)) because Reference 1 is expressly concerned with distributing traction to muck trucks and therefore requires a muck truck platform suitable to carry the powered bogie hardware. Reference 3 further motivates placing inverter/frequency-converter electronics proximate each AC traction motor to enable independent control. The combination yields predictable results: a powered muck truck with a robust chassis/bucket/bogie structure and locally supported traction drive components and control electronics.
CLAIM 9
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the slave drive motor is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie along a vertical direction, and an output end of the slave drive motor faces downwards.
ANALYSIS
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and therefore includes a muck truck having a bogie with a slave drive motor mounted on the bogie frame and coupled to the wheel pair.
With respect to “the slave drive motor is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie along a vertical direction, and an output end of the slave drive motor faces downwards,” Reference 1 teaches mounting the traction motor (6) on the bogie (5) of the muck truck (2) and coupling it through a gearbox (7) to the wheel axle (8), but does not expressly specify a vertical mounting orientation with a downward-facing output.
Official Notice is taken that traction motors and similar rotary electric motors may be mounted in different orientations (including vertical orientation with a downward-facing output) depending on packaging constraints, protection requirements, and drivetrain geometry, and that selecting a vertical mounting orientation is a routine mechanical packaging choice to fit within confined envelope space and/or to position drivetrain components relative to the axle/gearbox.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 9)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to orient the bogie-mounted slave traction motor vertically with a downward-facing output as a predictable packaging modification of Reference 1’s bogie-mounted motor (6), particularly in tunnel construction environments where space is constrained and underframe components may be arranged to reduce lateral protrusion and to improve protection and maintainability. This is a routine design choice that yields predictable results without changing the fundamental function of transmitting torque to the axle via a gearbox.
CLAIM 15
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a connection arm is fixedly mounted at an end of the end plate of the concave chassis, and a traction connection seat is fixedly mounted on the connection arm.
ANALYSIS
Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and therefore includes the muck truck chassis end plate mounted to a bogie frame and includes coupling/connection structure at the chassis end.
With respect to “a connection arm is fixedly mounted at an end of the end plate of the concave chassis,” Reference 2 teaches end-of-chassis coupling structures including traction seats (1) mounted at the ends of the vehicle body in association with end plates (first end plate 2) and related chassis structure. The traction seat (1) is a structural member positioned at the vehicle end for coupling/traction purposes, and it is fixedly connected to the end structure (including end plate 2).
With respect to “and a traction connection seat is fixedly mounted on the connection arm,” Reference 2’s traction seat (1) corresponds to a traction connection seat fixed at the end structure for coupling and towing/traction connection. The end-structure-mounted traction seat (1) provides the claimed traction connection seat function, and its fixed mounting at the end of the body corresponds to being fixedly mounted on a connection arm/end structure.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 15)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement end-plate-mounted traction connection structures (as taught by Reference 2’s traction seats (1) integrated with end plates (2)) in Reference 1’s powered muck truck system because the muck trucks must be coupled in sequence to form a consist (Reference 1), and robust traction/coupling interfaces at the ends of the chassis are necessary and predictable features for pulling/pushing loads in rail-bound tunnel transport. Integrating such traction seats at the end plate yields predictable coupling functionality.
CLAIM 17
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the muck truck bogie comprises two wheel pairs, and the slave drive motor is transmissively coupled to one of the two wheel pairs.
ANALYSIS
Claim 17 depends from claim 8 and therefore includes a muck truck bogie with at least one wheel pair and a slave motor coupled to the wheel pair.
With respect to “the muck truck bogie comprises two wheel pairs,” Reference 2 teaches a bogie frame (32) supporting the vehicle and includes multiple brake mechanisms (33) associated with the bogie, consistent with a bogie supporting multiple wheels. Such a bogie configuration corresponds to a bogie comprising two wheel pairs (i.e., a two-axle bogie), which is a common bogie structure for rail vehicles.
With respect to “and the slave drive motor is transmissively coupled to one of the two wheel pairs,” Reference 1 teaches a traction motor (6) coupled through gearbox (7) to a wheel axle (8), which corresponds to a motor driving a wheel pair/axle. While Reference 1 also describes driving wheel axles on the muck truck, it would have been obvious to configure the drivetrain such that the slave motor drives one of the two wheel pairs (one axle) as a predictable drivetrain simplification or configuration choice, particularly when traction is distributed across multiple vehicles in the consist (Reference 1), making it unnecessary for every axle on a given muck truck to be powered. This configuration still provides assist traction while reducing complexity, cost, and weight per muck truck.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 17)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a two-axle bogie (two wheel pairs) consistent with conventional rail bogie practice and to drive only one of the two wheel pairs using the slave motor because Reference 1’s distributed traction concept already spreads traction across multiple vehicles, allowing each powered muck truck to contribute tractive effort without powering all axles. Driving a single axle is a predictable drivetrain configuration that reduces component count and maintenance while still achieving traction assistance.
CLAIM 19
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 8, wherein: an air brake device is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie and is electrically coupled to the electrical control system; and a brake end of the air brake device cooperates with the wheel pair.
ANALYSIS
Claim 19 depends from claim 8 and therefore includes a muck truck bogie frame and a control system architecture.
With respect to “an air brake device is fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie,” Reference 2 teaches a bogie frame (32) on which braking components (brake mechanisms 33) are installed. Such brake mechanisms mounted to the bogie frame correspond to a brake device fixedly mounted on the bogie frame.
With respect to “and is electrically coupled to the electrical control system,” Reference 1 teaches that muck truck systems are electrically connected via cables/control lines to the traction car, and claim 8 (via claim 6) includes a locomotive-mounted electrical control system and associated electrical interconnections. It would have been obvious that brake devices in a powered, electrically controlled tunnel-transport consist would be electrically interfaced with the control system for command/monitoring (e.g., for coordinated braking and safety interlocks), particularly given Reference 3’s teaching of centralized monitoring and control by a controller/PLC (3016) over locomotive subsystems.
With respect to “a brake end of the air brake device cooperates with the wheel pair,” Reference 2’s bogie-mounted brake mechanisms (33) are provided for braking the bogie’s wheels, which corresponds to a brake end acting on and cooperating with the wheel pair (e.g., by applying frictional braking force).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 19)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to electrically couple bogie-mounted brake equipment (Reference 2, brake mechanisms 33 on bogie frame 32) to the locomotive control system (as in Reference 3’s controller/PLC 3016 and Reference 1’s control-line-connected consist) to enable coordinated braking control and safety management across the consist. This modification yields predictable results in tunnel transport where coordinated traction and braking are necessary for safe operations.
CLAIM 20
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the end plate of the concave chassis fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie through a bogie attachment seat.
ANALYSIS
Claim 20 depends from claim 8 and therefore includes the chassis end plate mounted to the bogie frame.
With respect to “the end plate of the concave chassis fixedly mounted on the frame of the muck truck bogie through a bogie attachment seat,” Reference 2 teaches body-to-bogie attachment structures including pads (7), upper side bearers (6), and a plate/center support arrangement (including top plate (8) and center plate components such as upper center plate (15) and lower center plate (35)) that provide the interface between the vehicle body/chassis and the bogie frame (32). This interface corresponds to a bogie attachment seat through which the chassis end structure (including end plate (2) and associated chassis members) is mounted to the bogie frame (32).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 20)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mount the chassis/end plate to the bogie frame through a dedicated attachment seat structure because Reference 2 teaches conventional and robust body-to-bogie mounting interfaces (pads 7, upper side bearer 6, top plate 8, center plate elements 15/35) needed to support load transfer and allow bogie rotation. Applying such a mounting interface in the powered muck truck context of Reference 1 is a predictable and necessary structural implementation for reliable rail vehicle operation.
CLAIM 21
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 8, wherein a main beam is fixedly mounted in a middle part of the end plate of the concave chassis along a longitudinal direction, and a side edge beam is fixedly mounted on a side of the concave chassis along the longitudinal direction.
ANALYSIS
Claim 21 depends from claim 8 and therefore includes the chassis and end plate structure.
With respect to “a main beam is fixedly mounted in a middle part of the end plate of the concave chassis along a longitudinal direction,” Reference 2 teaches longitudinal beams (9) integrated into the chassis/body structure. A longitudinal beam (9) positioned centrally for structural strength corresponds to a main beam extending along the longitudinal direction from the end structure.
With respect to “and a side edge beam is fixedly mounted on a side of the concave chassis along the longitudinal direction,” Reference 2 teaches side frame plates/side structural members (13) forming the side structural framework of the chassis along the longitudinal direction. These side structural members correspond to side edge beams fixed on the side of the chassis along the longitudinal direction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 21)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide longitudinal main and side structural beams (Reference 2’s longitudinal beams 9 and side frame structure 13) in the chassis of Reference 1’s powered muck trucks because distributed traction and heavy muck loads impose significant longitudinal and bending loads on the vehicle structure. Reinforcing the chassis with a central longitudinal beam and side longitudinal beams is a predictable structural design choice to maintain stiffness and durability.
CLAIMS 10-14, 16, AND 18: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND OFFICIAL NOTICE (WHERE APPLIED)
Claim(s) 10-14, 16, and 18 are 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 Official Notice (where specifically applied below).
CLAIM 10
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a shield cover is fixedly mounted on the end plate of the concave chassis, and a side of the shield cover close to the groove is inclined from top to bottom towards the groove.
ANALYSIS
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and therefore includes the muck truck chassis with end plate, groove/concave region, and a vertically oriented slave motor mounted on the bogie.
Reference 1 and Reference 3 together teach bogie-mounted powered traction equipment (motor (6), gearbox (7), wheel axle (8), and associated power electronics/inverter/frequency converter). Reference 2 teaches the chassis end structure including end plate (2) and low-profile chassis arrangement.
With respect to “a shield cover is fixedly mounted on the end plate of the concave chassis,” Official Notice is taken that it is well-known in rail and industrial equipment installations to provide fixed protective covers/enclosures over drivetrain and power-electronics components mounted near the bogie/frame to protect against debris, muck, impact, and water exposure, particularly in harsh environments such as tunnel construction.
With respect to “and a side of the shield cover close to the groove is inclined from top to bottom towards the groove,” Official Notice is taken that protective covers are commonly formed with inclined surfaces to shed debris and liquids away from sensitive components and to avoid accumulation of material. An inclined side toward a recess/groove is a predictable geometric feature for managing debris flow.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 10)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a fixed shield cover mounted to the chassis end plate to protect the bogie-mounted motor and power electronics used in Reference 1’s powered muck truck system because tunnel construction environments expose equipment to debris and moisture. Providing an inclined cover surface is a predictable design choice to reduce debris accumulation and facilitate cleaning and drainage, yielding predictable improvements in reliability and maintainability.
CLAIM 11
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the side of the shield cover close to the groove has an arc-shaped top.
ANALYSIS
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and therefore includes a shield cover with an inclined side near a groove.
With respect to “the side of the shield cover close to the groove has an arc-shaped top,” Official Notice is taken that cover geometries may include curved (arc-shaped) top edges to reduce snag points, improve strength, improve shedding of debris and liquids, and reduce stress concentrations at corners. Selecting an arc-shaped top is a predictable aesthetic/structural design choice for protective covers.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 11)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an arc-shaped top on the shield cover edge as a routine cover-shape optimization to improve debris shedding and reduce sharp corners that can be damaged or can snag in confined tunnel environments, with predictable improvements in durability and safety.
CLAIM 12
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the slave drive motor and the muck truck frequency-converter cabinet are inside the shield cover.
ANALYSIS
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and therefore includes a shield cover mounted to the chassis end plate.
With respect to “the slave drive motor and the muck truck frequency-converter cabinet are inside the shield cover,” Reference 1 teaches the slave traction motor (6) mounted on the muck truck bogie (5) and coupled to wheel axle (8) via gearbox (7). Reference 3 teaches the use of motor-associated power electronics (inverter/frequency-converter type) for AC traction motor control, which can be implemented in a cabinet. Official Notice is taken that protective shield covers are commonly sized and arranged to enclose both the traction motor and associated power electronics cabinets to provide environmental and impact protection.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 12)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to locate both the bogie-mounted traction motor and its associated frequency-converter cabinet within a protective shield cover to protect both components from debris and moisture and to reduce accidental contact, a predictable packaging/protection approach in harsh tunnel construction operating conditions.
CLAIM 13
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 12, wherein a door plate is movably mounted on another side of the shield cover away from the groove.
ANALYSIS
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and therefore includes a shield cover enclosing components.
With respect to “a door plate is movably mounted on another side of the shield cover away from the groove,” Official Notice is taken that enclosures for motors and power electronics commonly include an access door (movably mounted door plate) to allow inspection, service, and replacement of enclosed components. Locating the door on a side away from a debris-collection groove is a predictable layout choice to reduce ingress of debris and facilitate access.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 13)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a movable door plate on the shield cover to permit maintenance access to the enclosed traction motor and frequency-converter cabinet, with the door placed on a relatively cleaner side away from the debris groove to reduce contamination and improve maintainability in a tunnel environment.
CLAIM 14
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the door plate comprises a plurality of mesh holes with rainproof eaves.
ANALYSIS
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and therefore includes an access door on a protective cover.
With respect to “the door plate comprises a plurality of mesh holes with rainproof eaves,” Official Notice is taken that doors/panels of electrical and motor enclosures often include ventilation openings (such as mesh openings) to permit airflow for cooling while incorporating rain shields/eaves or louver-like structures to reduce water ingress. This is a known, predictable enclosure design approach.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 14)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include ventilating mesh openings with rainproof eaves in the access door to achieve cooling airflow for the enclosed traction motor and power electronics while mitigating water ingress, a predictable and commonly used protective enclosure design providing expected thermal-management benefits.
CLAIM 16
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising two connection arms, wherein a motor mounting port is formed between the two connection arms.
ANALYSIS
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and therefore includes traction connection structure at the chassis end.
Reference 2 teaches end coupling structures (traction seats 1) integrated with end structure (end plate 2). Official Notice is taken that it is common to implement end coupling structures using two laterally spaced arms/plates to provide structural symmetry and strength and to define a central opening/port between the arms for accommodating equipment packaging, routing, or mounting interfaces. Forming a motor mounting port/opening between two arms is a predictable structural arrangement when packaging a motor and drivetrain components near the chassis end/bogie region.
If Applicant traverses this Official Notice, the Examiner will require documentary evidence to support the noticed fact.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 16)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use two connection arms and define a mounting port between them to provide a strong, symmetric end structure while accommodating nearby motor/drivetrain packaging, especially in a compact tunnel muck truck design. This is a predictable structural modification yielding expected improvements in mounting robustness and packaging flexibility.
CLAIM 18
The power decentralized electric locomotive apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the slave drive motor is transmissively coupled to the one wheel pair through a muck truck gearbox.
ANALYSIS
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and therefore includes a slave motor coupled to one wheel pair of a two-wheel-pair bogie.
With respect to “the slave drive motor is transmissively coupled to the one wheel pair through a muck truck gearbox,” Reference 1 expressly teaches that the traction motor (6) output is coupled through a gearbox (7) to drive the wheel axle (8). Thus, Reference 1 teaches coupling the traction motor to the wheel pair/axle through a gearbox, meeting the limitation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 18)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a gearbox between the traction motor and the driven wheel pair because Reference 1 already teaches that a gearbox (7) provides the required speed/torque conversion for driving the wheel axle (8) from the traction motor (6). Using a gearbox is a predictable and standard traction drivetrain implementation.
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