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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/23 and 06/04/24 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 18–19 broadly require autonomously driving bimodal vehicles from holding locations onto an active train track, coordinating uncoupling and recoupling operations, controlling multiple vehicles to create and close intervehicle spacing, and (claim 19) performing merge/demerge operations while the train is in “continuous or intermittent motion.” The specification describes the operational concept and high-level steps (database establishment, sensing approach to crossings, signaling vehicles, adjusting speeds, coupling), but provides limited detail regarding the specific control architecture and parameters needed to practice the full scope without undue experimentation, such as vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-controller communication requirements, sensing modalities and required accuracy, synchronization/timing constraints for safe coupling while moving, and coupler actuation/verification and safety interlocks during dynamic merge/demerge.
Claims 1 and 4 require an autonomous driving system addressable by on-board and remote controllers and remotely addressable couplers; claims 9–10 require a railway network/train system including remote controllers adapted to operate vehicles. The disclosure identifies these concepts and generally states that controllers/sensors/actuators are “well known,” but provides limited vehicle-specific detail for how remote control is integrated with railway-mode operation and coupling/uncoupling operations in the claimed context.
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 1-21 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.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 1: AMBIGUOUS WHEEL-SET COMPOSITION (“EACH BIMODAL WHEEL SET OR SETS”) AND MIXED POSITIONAL TERMINOLOGY
Issue: Claim 1 recites “a support structure including at least two bimodal wheel sets, each bimodal wheel set or sets comprising…” This phrasing is unclear as to whether (i) each individual bimodal wheel set includes the full set of wheels that follows (two railway wheels and two roadway wheels), or (ii) the “wheel set or sets” collectively include those wheels. The scope of “bimodal wheel set” in claim 1 is therefore uncertain.
Issue: Claim 1 further recites “two roadway wheels laterally spaced axially outward of the railway wheels,” which mixes “laterally spaced” and “axially outward” in a manner that renders the relative placement unclear (i.e., whether spacing is along the axle axis, lateral relative to the vehicle centerline, or both).
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 1: TERMS OF DEGREE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE BOUNDARY (“AT OR NEAR THE WIDTHWISE LIMITS”)
Issue: Claim 1 recites roadway wheels “at or near the widthwise limits of the conventional roadway.” The phrase “at or near” is a term of degree without an objective boundary in the claim. The specification provides an example width limit (e.g., 102 inches for certain U.S. commercial vehicles), but does not set an objective “near” tolerance or a clear rule for determining when the wheel location is “near” a widthwise limit across the full scope of “conventional roadway” (which is expressly stated to vary by jurisdiction/standards).
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIMS 1, 13, 18, 19: INCONSISTENT/UNCLEAR REFERENCE TO “RAIL HEIGHT,” “HEIGHT OF RAILS,” AND “HEIGHT OF THE TRACKS”
Issue: Claim 1 uses “standard rail height of the railway,” while claims 13, 18, and 19 recite “height of the railway tracks” / “height of the rails of the track.” “Rail height” can be understood as the structural rail section height (base-to-head), whereas “track height” could be construed to include ties/ballast/rail seat or other elements, creating uncertainty as to the reference dimension controlling the wheel radius difference.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 1 AND CLAIMS 20–21: UNCLEAR “COMMON GRADE” / “AT COMMON GRADE” LANGUAGE
Issue: Claim 1 states the roadway and railway “intersecting on a common grade,” claim 20 requires crossings and switches “all have a common grade,” and claim 21 recites “at common grade roadway-railway transition crossings” (grammatically unclear). “Common grade” could mean an at-grade (same-elevation) crossing, could be read as “same slope,” or could imply something else. The intended structural/positional constraint is not distinctly claimed.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 3: “AXIALLY ALIGNED” AMBIGUITY
Issue: Claim 3 recites “the wheels of each wheel set are axially aligned.” It is unclear whether “axially aligned” means (i) mounted on a single common axle, (ii) mounted on separate axles sharing a common axis, or (iii) merely having axes that are parallel. Because the application discusses both coaxial mounting and “multiple axle components axially aligned,” the scope is uncertain.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 4: “REMOTELY ADDRESSABLE COUPLERS”
Issue: Claim 4 recites “remotely addressable couplers” without making clear what “addressable” means (e.g., capable of receiving remote commands to actuate coupling/uncoupling, capable of being identified on a network, capable of being polled/queried, etc.). The term is functional and may be interpreted in multiple ways.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIMS 5–6: UNCLEAR STRUCTURAL BOUNDARIES FOR “WEIGHT BEARING CONNECTION,” “WEIGHT BEARING SURFACE,” “ANTI-PIVOT LOCKING SUB-MEMBER,” AND “SLIDABLE WEIGHT BEARING SURFACES”
Issue: Claim 5 recites “a weight bearing connection with a pivotally mounted supporting structure,” “laterally central weight bearing surface,” “laterally non-centrally located, weight bearing surface,” and an “upwardly extending selectively retractable anti-pivot locking sub-member.” The claim does not clearly define (i) what constitutes the “weight bearing connection,” (ii) what defines “central” versus “non-central” (relative to which reference line/axis), and (iii) what structure is encompassed by “anti-pivot locking sub-member” (post, pin, latch, etc.). Claim 6 adds “two slidable weight bearing surfaces,” but does not identify what they slide relative to, the direction of sliding, or how sliding relates to the retractable locking feature.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 7: TERM OF DEGREE (“DISTALLY”) AND WHEEL-SET CONTENT CLARITY
Issue: Claim 7 recites two supporting structures “disposed distally from one another along the length of the vehicle.” The term “distally” lacks an objective boundary and may be indefinite absent a clear structural relationship (e.g., “at opposite longitudinal ends,” “forward and rear,” or “separated by at least [distance]”). Claim 7 also states “each bimodal wheel set having four roadway wheels and two railway wheels,” which should be reconciled with claim 1’s wheel-set definition to ensure consistent meaning of “bimodal wheel set” across claims (or to make explicit that claim 7’s wheel set includes the optional inboard roadway wheels).
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 9: “INTERSECTING TRACK SWITCHES” AND “REMOTE CONTROLLERS ADAPTED FOR OPERATION” RELATIONSHIP
Issue: Claim 9 recites a “railway network including transition crossings and intersecting track switches and remote controllers adapted for operation of vehicles…” The term “intersecting track switches” is unclear (switches are typically points/turnouts; “intersecting” could refer to crossings, turnouts, or intersections). Additionally, the claim does not distinctly specify how the “remote controllers” are part of the “railway network” (structural association, communication linkage, location, etc.), beyond a broad “adapted for operation” functional statement.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 10 (AND DEPENDENTS 11, 12, 21): INCORRECT/UNCLEAR CROSS-REFERENCE AND MISSING ANTECEDENT (“TRANSITION ROADWAYS”)
Issue: Claim 10 recites “a plurality of trains as recited in claim 5.” Claim 5 is directed to “A vehicle, as recited in claim 1,” not a train. As written, “trains as recited in claim 5” is unclear and renders claim 10 indefinite as to what a “train” is in claim 10. Claim 10 also introduces “transition roadways” without antecedent basis and without clear meaning (whether it refers to the roadway portion of a crossing, a dedicated transition lane/area, or something else). Because claims 11, 12, and 21 depend from claim 10, this indefiniteness propagates.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 11: “SPACED CORRESPONDINGLY” (VAGUE RELATIONAL LANGUAGE)
Issue: Claim 11 recites legs “spaced correspondingly to that of rail-supporting ties… so as to rest thereon.” “Correspondingly” lacks an objective boundary and does not distinctly claim the spacing relationship (e.g., equal pitch, aligned with tie spacing, positioned to overlie ties, etc.).
INDEFINITENESS / POTENTIAL 112(a) SUPPORT ISSUE – CLAIM 13: “LOWER END…ALONG THE ROADWAY” AND TRACK-HEIGHT TERMINOLOGY
Issue: Claim 13 recites that the inclined surface member’s “lower end…is disposed distally therefrom along the roadway.” The specification description of ramps/adjuncts repeatedly describes them as extending away from the roadway along the railway. The “along the roadway” recitation may therefore create ambiguity as to the intended orientation and may raise a written description question if the roadway-oriented configuration is not reasonably conveyed.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 14: INCONSISTENT USE OF “BIMODAL WHEEL SET” AND AMBIGUOUS “WHEEL SET PAIR OR PAIRS”
Issue: Claim 14 defines “bimodal wheel sets” as each wheel set “consisting of a railway wheel and a roadway wheel” on a “common axle,” whereas claim 1 describes a bimodal wheel set as comprising “two railway wheels” and “two roadway wheels” laterally spaced. The inconsistent usage of “wheel set” across independent claims may render the metes and bounds uncertain, particularly as claim 14 also recites “at least one pair of bimodal wheel sets” and features “disposed centrally of said wheel set pair or pairs.”
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 16: “A MEMBER OF A SIDE FRAME” (UNCLEAR STRUCTURAL IDENTIFICATION)
Issue: Claim 16 recites bolster spring lower ends “resting on a member of a side frame.” The phrase “a member” is vague because the side frame has multiple possible members and the claim does not identify the structural portion bearing the spring load, leaving the scope uncertain.
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 18: “SECOND RAILWAY TRACK” RELATIVE TERM AND CROSSING RAMP FUNCTION LANGUAGE
Issue: Claim 18 recites holding locations selected from “a second railway track and a roadway crossing.” The term “second railway track” is relative and unclear without identifying the first track (presumably the “train track”). Additionally, “inclined ramps adapted to engage the roadway wheels…as the vehicles approach and depart from the roadway” is awkward and may be unclear as to whether “depart from the roadway” means departing the crossing roadway onto the rails, or departing the roadway in some other
INDEFINITENESS – CLAIM 19: PRONOUN/ANTECEDENT AMBIGUITY (“SAID SPACE,” “THAT TRAIN SPACE,” “IT”)
Issue: In claim 19, step (d) introduces “intervehicle train space,” and step (e) states “When said space is at a transition crossing…signal each vehicle to be demerged…as it approaches that crossing…signal any vehicle to be merged…as that train space approaches the crossing.” The use of “it” and the shifting references between “said space” and “that train space” can create ambiguity as to what is approaching (the space versus the vehicle) and when signaling occurs.
I. REFERENCES RELIED UPON
Reference 1 (“Langenbeck”): US 2007/0028798 A1, published Feb. 8, 2007.
Reference 2 (“Keator”): US 2,135,307, issued Nov. 1, 1938.
Reference 3 (“Whiston”): US 2003/0172837 A1, published Sep. 18, 2003.
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.
II. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
CLAIM 13 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1).
──────────────────────────────────────── 13. A railway transition structure adjoining the roadway of a roadway-railway crossing and adapted to engage the roadway wheels of a bimodal vehicle having coaxially mounted railway wheels and roadway wheels, the radius of the latter exceeding that of the former by an amount less that the height of the railway tracks, as a vehicle supported by said wheels approaches and departs from the crossing, the structure comprising an inclined vehicle-supporting surface member, the upper end of which adjoins the roadway and the lower end of which is disposed distally therefrom along the roadway, said vehicle-supporting surface including laterally distinct segments at lateral positions corresponding to the lateral disposition of vehicle roadway wheels for which the transition structure is intended, said laterally distinct segments including a plurality of generally vertical supporting members the upper ends of which are of graduated height defining the gradient of the inclined plane vehicle-supporting surface supported thereby.
CLAIM 13 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK)
Langenbeck teaches a dual-mode vehicle 10 traveling between a guided steel-rail track 30 and an unguided road surface 100 using a transition area including an inclined plane 110. Langenbeck’s dual-function hubs 20 include a rail-engaging annular steel surface 23 and a road tire 27 mounted on rim profile 25 (i.e., coaxially mounted rail and road contact structures), such that the road tire 27 has a larger effective radius than the rail-engaging surface 23 and is not in contact with the support surface when the annular steel surface 23 is engaged on rails 30 (see FIGS. 2-4, 9-10: pneumatic tire lower surface 28 above the rail support surface when on rail). Langenbeck further teaches the inclined plane 110 as an extension/adjunct from the road surface 100 to the rail region to permit the transition of the vehicle between rail-mode support and road-mode support (FIGS. 7-8, 10), with the upper end adjoining the road surface 100 and the lower end disposed distally from the roadway along the approach/departure path relative to the rails 30 (FIGS. 7-8). Langenbeck further depicts/teaches the inclined plane 110 as laterally arranged relative to the vehicle’s road tire contact locations (i.e., positioned where the pneumatic tires 27 will contact during the transition, including outside the rails 30 and between rails 30), thereby providing laterally distinct support regions corresponding to the lateral disposition of the road tires 27. The inclined plane 110 is a vehicle-supporting surface having a defined gradient, which in structural implementations necessarily is supported by underlying supports (vertical members) that define and maintain the incline and thereby provide graduated support heights along the incline.
Accordingly, all limitations of claim 13 are disclosed by Langenbeck.
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.
III. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. § 103
A. CLAIMS 1 AND 3 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3).
────────────────────────────────────────
A vehicle capable of operation on a conventional roadway and on a conventional railway, the roadway having a widthwise limit, the railway having a standard gauge and rails of a standard height, the roadway and the railway intersecting on a common grade, the vehicle including an autonomous driving system addressable by both on-board and remote controllers, and a support structure including at least two bimodal wheel sets, each bimodal wheel set or sets comprising two railway wheels laterally spaced to conform to the gauge of the conventional railway and two roadway wheels laterally spaced axially outward of the railway wheels at or near the widthwise limits of the conventional roadway, the radius of the roadway wheels exceeding the radius of the railway wheels by an amount less than the standard rail height of the railway.
CLAIM 1 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON)
Vehicle capable of operation on a conventional roadway and a conventional railway: Langenbeck teaches dual-mode vehicle 10 operating on guided steel track/rails 30 and on unguided road surface 100, including transition between the two (inclined plane 110; FIGS. 7-10).
Roadway widthwise limit; railway standard gauge and standard rail height; roadway and railway intersecting on a common grade: Langenbeck teaches a road surface 100 and steel rails 30 in a transition/crossing region where the vehicle transitions between rail support and road support using inclined plane 110, with the road surface 100 shown at substantially the rail-top level during road operation (FIG. 10). The track 30 is a conventional steel rail system (gauge/rail height are conventional characteristics of such steel track).
Autonomous driving system addressable by both on-board and remote controllers: Langenbeck teaches on-board control including on-board computer system 60 controlling independently driven hubs/motors 40 (i.e., autonomous/automated control capability on-board). Whiston teaches remote command capability via a selectively operable controller transmitting command signals and a control receiver responsive to command signals for actuating vehicle functions (including hi-rail functions and wheel drive), including operation via a radio controlled link (i.e., remote controller/receiver control architecture). Combining Whiston’s remote command/receiver control with Langenbeck’s on-board computer-controlled dual-mode vehicle yields an autonomous driving system that is addressable by both an on-board controller (computer 60) and a remote controller (controller/receiver architecture as taught by Whiston).
Support structure including at least two bimodal wheel sets: Langenbeck teaches multiple dual-function hubs 20 (including hubs 21, 22) mounted at front and rear of vehicle 10 and on laterally opposite sides, providing at least two wheel sets for supporting the vehicle (FIGS. 2-4).
Each bimodal wheel set comprising two railway wheels laterally spaced to conform to gauge and two roadway wheels laterally spaced outward at/near roadway widthwise limits: Langenbeck teaches left and right rail-engaging annular steel surfaces 23 (railway wheels) riding on rails 30 (i.e., laterally spaced by the track gauge). Langenbeck further teaches pneumatic tires 27 mounted on rim portions 25 of the same hubs 20 and positioned laterally outward relative to the rail-engaging annular surfaces 23 such that the tires 27 straddle the outsides of the rails 30 during rail mode (FIGS. 2-4, 9-10), consistent with outward road wheel placement.
Radius of roadway wheels exceeding radius of railway wheels by less than rail height: Langenbeck teaches that when the annular steel surfaces 23 are engaged on rails 30, the pneumatic tire lower surfaces 28 are above the rail support surface and not contacting (FIG. 9), and when on the road surface 100 the pneumatic tires 27 contact the road while the annular steel surfaces 23 are disengaged (FIG. 10), implying the road tire effective radius exceeds the rail-engaging surface radius by an amount configured to clear the rail height and enable transition using inclined plane 110.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 1)
It would have been obvious to incorporate Whiston’s remote controller/receiver command architecture into Langenbeck’s on-board computer-controlled dual-mode vehicle to enable remote supervision, remote actuation, and coordinated operation during rail/road transitions and rail operations, providing predictable improvements in controllability and operational safety without changing the underlying wheel/transition mechanics of Langenbeck.
──────────────────────────────────────── 3. A vehicle as recited in claim 1, wherein the wheels of each wheel set are axially aligned.
CLAIM 3 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON)
Claim 3 includes all limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, wheels of each wheel set are axially aligned: Langenbeck teaches a dual-function hub 20 formed as a single wheel/hub structure having rail-engaging annular surface 23 and road rim portion 25 for pneumatic tire 27 arranged coaxially (i.e., axially aligned about a common axis of rotation for the wheel/hub assembly).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 3)
The same combination rationale for claim 1 applies. The added “axially aligned” limitation is already satisfied by Langenbeck’s coaxial dual-function wheel/hub configuration and would be maintained in the combined system because Whiston’s remote control architecture does not alter wheel coaxiality.
B. CLAIM 2 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3) AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KEATOR (REFERENCE 2).
──────────────────────────────────────── 2. A vehicle as recited in claim 1, including at least one bimodal wheel set having two additional roadway wheels inboard of the railway wheels, all of the roadway wheels having a common radius.
CLAIM 2 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR)
Claim 2 includes all limitations of claim 1, which are met by Langenbeck in view of Whiston as set forth above.
Additionally, at least one bimodal wheel set having two additional roadway wheels inboard of the railway wheels, all roadway wheels common radius: Keator teaches a wheel assembly including dual pneumatic tires 18 and 19 (i.e., additional roadway wheels) disposed on laterally opposite sides of a rail-engaging steel tire 20 (i.e., inboard/outboard arrangement around the rail-engaging structure), with the pneumatic tires being of common size/radius (road-engaging tires 18, 19). Keator’s dual-tire arrangement evidences the known design of providing additional road tires at the same radius for increased load support and stability while retaining a rail-engaging wheel/tire member.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 2)
It would have been obvious to modify at least one of Langenbeck’s wheel sets to include additional inboard roadway wheels as taught by Keator in order to increase load-bearing capacity and improve stability on road surfaces while preserving rail operation via the rail-engaging surface, with the common roadway wheel radius providing predictable uniform road support and braking/traction characteristics.
C. CLAIM 4 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3).
──────────────────────────────────────── 4. A vehicle as recited in claim 1, further including remotely addressable couplers at one or both ends of the vehicle.
CLAIM 4 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON)
Claim 4 includes all limitations of claim 1, which are met by Langenbeck in view of Whiston as set forth above.
Additionally, remotely addressable couplers at one or both ends: Whiston teaches a rail car coupler assembly 52 at an end of the vehicle, including a coupler-knuckle assembly 70 and coupler latch mechanism 72 that is hydraulically actuated by coupler latch cylinder 74 for remote control (i.e., remotely addressable from an operator control station), and Whiston further teaches coupler functionality at ends of the vehicle via front and rear assemblies (consistent with one or both ends).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 4)
It would have been obvious to equip Langenbeck’s dual-mode vehicle with Whiston’s remotely operable coupler hardware to enable towing, train-set formation, and automated/remote coupling operations in rail mode, which is a predictable use of known coupler assemblies to expand operational capability of a rail-operable vehicle.
D. CLAIMS 5-12, 9, 10-12, 20, AND 21 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3) AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KEATOR (REFERENCE 2) AND OFFICIAL NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL RAIL BOGIE PIVOT/SIDE-BEARING STRUCTURES.
NOTE ON OFFICIAL NOTICE (LIMITED): Official notice is taken that conventional rail vehicle bogies/trucks commonly include (i) a central weight-bearing pivot/center plate arrangement permitting relative yaw/pivot between vehicle body and bogie for rail tracking, and (ii) laterally offset side bearings/side bearing surfaces that transmit load and can be configured as sliding/replaceable elements, and (iii) mechanical locking members/pins can be used to restrain relative rotation when required (e.g., for stability on non-rail surfaces). Applicant is invited to traverse official notice.
──────────────────────────────────────── 5. A vehicle, as recited in claim 1, including at least one bimodal wheel set having a weight bearing connection with a pivotally mounted supporting structure comprising a horizontal supporting member adapted to support the vehicle, the horizontal supporting member including a laterally central weight bearing surface with a pivot member extending upwardly therefrom, and at least one laterally non-centrally located, weight bearing surface, said non-central bearing surface including an upwardly extending selectively retractable anti-pivot locking sub-member.
CLAIM 5 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 5 includes all limitations of claim 1, which are met by Langenbeck in view of Whiston as set forth above.
Additionally, weight bearing connection with a pivotally mounted supporting structure including a horizontal supporting member supporting the vehicle: Whiston teaches hi-rail lift assemblies including mounting structure assembly 46 coupled to the vehicle frame and axle box assembly 50 supporting rail wheels, providing a load-transmitting support arrangement for rail operation. Official notice is taken that bogie/truck assemblies for rail operation include horizontal bolster/support members transmitting vehicle weight.
Laterally central weight bearing surface with pivot member extending upwardly therefrom: Official notice is taken that rail bogies typically include a central bearing/center plate with a pivot/kingpin/center pin arrangement permitting pivoting between the vehicle body and bogie.
At least one laterally non-central weight bearing surface including an upwardly extending selectively retractable anti-pivot locking sub-member: Official notice is taken that laterally offset side bearings/side bearing surfaces transmit load and can be used with mechanical locking members to restrain pivot when desired. Keator further evidences the use of a selectively engageable locking member (e.g., removable pin 98 and/or locking bolt 112 engaging steering linkage structures) to lock an otherwise steerable/pivotable arrangement, supporting the concept of selectively locking relative movement.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 5)
It would have been obvious to implement a conventional rail bogie pivot/side-bearing support architecture (center pivot plus side bearings) in Langenbeck’s dual-mode vehicle and to provide a selectively engageable locking member as evidenced by Keator, in order to (i) permit relative pivoting for rail tracking in rail mode and (ii) selectively restrain pivoting for improved stability/controllability during road operation, with predictable results.
──────────────────────────────────────── 6. A vehicle, as recited in claim 5, including two slidable weight bearing surfaces, each including a selectively retractable anti-pivot locking sub-member.
CLAIM 6 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 6 includes all limitations of claim 5, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, two slidable weight bearing surfaces each including selectively retractable anti-pivot locking sub-member: Official notice is taken that side bearing surfaces in rail bogies are commonly implemented as sliding/replaceable members to accommodate movement and wear, and can be provided on both lateral sides. The selectively retractable locking functionality is as addressed for claim 5 (with Keator evidencing selective locking members).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 6)
It would have been obvious to provide side bearings on both lateral sides as slidable bearing surfaces (a known, predictable rail bogie construction) and to provide locking members for each to selectively restrain pivoting when needed, thereby improving robustness and stability in mixed rail/road operation.
──────────────────────────────────────── 7. A vehicle, as recited in claim 5, including two pivotally mounted supporting structures disposed distally from one another along the length of the vehicle, each of said supporting structures comprising (a) two bimodal wheel sets, each bimodal wheel set having four roadway wheels and two railway wheels.
CLAIM 7 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 7 includes all limitations of claim 5, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, two pivotally mounted supporting structures disposed distally along vehicle length: Langenbeck teaches front and rear wheel/hub locations (hubs 21 and 22) on vehicle 10. Whiston teaches front and rear lift assemblies (32, 34), evidencing plural support structures at distal ends.
Each supporting structure comprising two bimodal wheel sets: Langenbeck teaches multiple dual-function hubs 20 and wheel locations; implementing two wheel sets per supporting structure is a predictable scaling to meet load/length requirements.
Each bimodal wheel set having four roadway wheels and two railway wheels: Keator teaches dual pneumatic tires 18, 19 associated with a rail-engaging member 20 (i.e., additional roadway wheels). Applying Keator’s “dual roadway tire” concept to Langenbeck’s dual-mode wheel sets yields wheel sets having multiple roadway tires (four total per set when dual tires are used on each lateral side) while maintaining two rail-engaging wheels/surfaces (left/right) to ride the rails.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 7)
It would have been obvious to provide two distal pivoting support structures (front and rear) to accommodate longer vehicles and rail tracking, and to increase roadway load capacity by adding additional roadway tires as taught by Keator to each bimodal wheel set, yielding predictable improvements in load support while maintaining rail compatibility.
──────────────────────────────────────── 8. A train comprised of a plurality of vehicles as recited in claim 5.
CLAIM 8 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 8 includes vehicles as recited in claim 5, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, a train comprised of a plurality of such vehicles: Whiston teaches coupling a vehicle to other railway vehicles via coupler assembly 52 (including coupler knuckle 70). Langenbeck teaches coordinated groups of vehicles operating on a common track. Combining these teachings yields a plurality of such vehicles coupled/arranged to form a train.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 8)
It would have been obvious to form trains from multiple dual-mode vehicles by providing couplers to mechanically link vehicles (Whiston) and thereby achieve conventional train operation with predictable benefits in coordinated transport.
──────────────────────────────────────── 9. A railway network including transition crossings and intersecting track switches and remote controllers adapted for operation of vehicles as recited in claim 5.
CLAIM 9 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Vehicles as recited in claim 5 are met as set forth above.
Railway network including transition crossings: Langenbeck teaches guided steel track 30 with transition areas using inclined plane 110 to and from road surface 100.
Intersecting track switches: Langenbeck teaches a conventional railway switch that can be operated/called for operation to shunt an exiting vehicle onto a siding.
Remote controllers adapted for operation of such vehicles: Whiston teaches a selectively operable controller transmitting command signals and a control receiver for actuating hi-rail functions, including operation via a radio link, which constitutes remote control architecture adaptable for operating dual-mode rail vehicles.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 9)
It would have been obvious to provide a network infrastructure (transitions and switches) compatible with dual-mode vehicles (Langenbeck) and to employ known remote controller/receiver architectures (Whiston) to supervise and command vehicle operations on that network, improving operational coordination and safety.
──────────────────────────────────────── 10. A train system comprising a plurality of trains as recited in claim 5, the system including a plurality of roadway-railway transition crossings, those crossings including inclined plane adjuncts adjoining the transition roadways and extending away therefrom and along the railway, the adjuncts being laterally spaced correspondingly to the lateral spacing of the roadway wheels of system vehicles, each of the inclined plane adjuncts having an upper end adjoining the roadway at the level of the roadway and a lower end distal therefrom and at the level of the lowermost portion of the trains' vehicles' roadway wheels.
CLAIM 10 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Trains of vehicles as recited in claim 5: Vehicles per claim 5 met as above; plurality of trains follows from forming multiple such trains (claim 8 logic).
Plurality of roadway-railway transition crossings including inclined plane adjuncts adjoining transition roadways and extending away along the railway: Langenbeck teaches inclined plane 110 as an extension of road surface 100 located along the rail region to enable entering/exiting the guided track 30 (FIGS. 7-8).
Adjuncts laterally spaced to correspond to roadway wheels: Langenbeck teaches inclined plane portions located where pneumatic tires 27 will contact (outside rails 30 and between rails 30), corresponding to lateral disposition of roadway tires 27.
Upper end adjoining roadway at roadway level; lower end distal at level of lowermost portion of roadway wheels: Langenbeck teaches the pneumatic tires 27 contacting the road surface 100 after transition (FIG. 10) and contacting the inclined plane 110 during transition (FIGS. 7-8), implying the ramp ends meet the road level and descend to a lower region that supports the lowermost tire portion during transition.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 10)
It would have been obvious to implement multiple transition crossings using inclined ramps as taught by Langenbeck to support repeated network operation by multiple trains/vehicles, with predictable results enabling standardized rail/road transitions at multiple locations.
──────────────────────────────────────── 11. A train system as recited in claim 10, wherein each of said adjuncts is a structural assembly with a flat surface inclined from the level of the lower end of the adjunct to the level of the upper end of the adjunct with supporting legs along the adjunct from the lower end to the upper end thereof, the legs spaced correspondingly to that of rail-supporting ties located under the adjunct so as to rest thereon.
CLAIM 11 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF KEATOR; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 11 includes all limitations of claim 10, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, adjunct is a structural assembly with a flat inclined surface and supporting legs spaced to rest on rail-supporting ties: Langenbeck teaches inclined plane 110 as a smooth inclined surface. Keator teaches modifying the region around rails (e.g., adding material between and outside rails to facilitate mounting/dismounting), evidencing structural augmentation around track regions. Official notice is taken that track-mounted ramp assemblies can be implemented as flat surfaces supported by legs that rest on/align with standard tie spacing to distribute load and simplify installation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 11)
It would have been obvious to construct the inclined plane as a modular structural assembly supported on legs aligned with tie spacing to facilitate installation, maintainability, and load distribution, yielding predictable structural support for repeated vehicle transitions.
──────────────────────────────────────── 12. A train system as recited in claim 10, wherein said adjuncts include a flat load bearing surface supported by specialized rail-supporting ties, each of the specialized ties having upstanding segments laterally spaced to conform to the lateral spacing of system vehicle roadway wheels and of graduated vertical dimensions extending above the tops of adjacent rails and defining the incline of the adjuncts from the lower end to the upper end thereof.
CLAIM 12 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 12 includes all limitations of claim 10, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, adjunct supported by specialized ties with upstanding segments laterally spaced and graduated heights defining incline: Official notice is taken that a ramp adjacent/over rails can be realized by modifying/supporting tie structures with laterally positioned supports and graduated heights to define a desired incline, which is a predictable structural approach for forming an inclined support surface while accommodating the rails beneath.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 12)
It would have been obvious to implement the inclined plane using specialized tie-supported, graduated supports to precisely define the incline and support repeated wheel loading, producing predictable improvements in structural stability and manufacturability for transition crossings.
──────────────────────────────────────── 20. The railway network of claim 9, wherein the transition crossings and the intersecting track switches all have a common grade at the respective transition crossings and intersecting switches.
CLAIM 20 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 20 includes all limitations of claim 9, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, transition crossings and intersecting switches all have a common grade at those locations: Langenbeck teaches transition regions where road surface 100 and rail-related structures are arranged for vehicle passage (FIG. 10), consistent with grade-compatible interfaces. Official notice is taken that conventional roadway-railway crossings and switch regions intended for vehicle passage are typically configured to a common/passable grade at the crossing/switch interface to allow surface traversal and avoid vehicle interference.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 20)
It would have been obvious to configure crossings and switch interfaces to a common grade where vehicle traversal is intended, as a predictable civil/track design choice to reduce interference and improve operational safety.
──────────────────────────────────────── 21. The train system of claim 10, including a plurality of at common grade roadway-railway transition crossings, and wherein each train consists of a plurality of vehicles.
CLAIM 21 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 21 includes all limitations of claim 10, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, plurality of common grade crossings: As addressed for claim 20, common grade crossings are a known, predictable crossing configuration (official notice).
Each train consists of a plurality of vehicles: As addressed for claim 8, Whiston’s couplers (52, 70) enable formation of trains comprising multiple coupled vehicles.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 21)
It would have been obvious to implement multiple transition crossings as common-grade crossings for compatibility and safety, and to operate trains as pluralities of coupled vehicles using known coupler technology, yielding predictable system-level operability.
E. CLAIMS 14-17 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF KEATOR (REFERENCE 2) AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3) AND OFFICIAL NOTICE (AS SET FORTH ABOVE).
──────────────────────────────────────── 14. A vehicle support structure comprising (a) at least one pair of bimodal wheel sets each wheel set having a common axle and consisting of a railway wheel and a roadway wheel, the roadway wheel having a radius 3 to 5 inches larger than that of the railway wheel, and (b) a mounting member including (i) a horizontally disposed vehicle weight-bearing sub-member, (ii) a pivot post extending upwardly of the weight bearing sub-member and disposed centrally of said wheel set pair or pairs, (iii.) at least one retractable post upwardly extending from the weight bearing sub-member and disposed non-centrally of said wheel set pair or pairs and (iv) a weight transmitting connection between the horizontally disposed weight-bearing sub-member and said wheels
CLAIM 14 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF KEATOR AND WHISTON; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
At least one pair of bimodal wheel sets each having common axle and consisting of railway wheel and roadway wheel: Langenbeck teaches dual-function hubs 20 having a rail-engaging annular surface 23 and a road tire 27 on rim profile 25, rotating about a common axis (coaxial road/rail wheel structures). Keator likewise teaches a wheel assembly having pneumatic road tires 18, 19 and a rail-engaging steel tire 20 on a common hub/axis.
Roadway wheel radius 3 to 5 inches larger than railway wheel: Langenbeck teaches a configured clearance relationship between the road tire 27 and rail surface 30 during rail mode and the transition using inclined plane 110, indicating a designed radius differential enabling clearance relative to rail height. Keator teaches the rail engaging tire being smaller in diameter than the pneumatic tire(s). It would have been an obvious dimensional selection to implement a radius difference within a few inches (e.g., 3-5 inches) to ensure (i) adequate clearance over rail height and (ii) practical ramp height/length for transitions, consistent with the transition principles of Langenbeck and the relative wheel sizing taught by Keator.
Mounting member including horizontally disposed vehicle weight-bearing sub-member; central pivot post; at least one non-central retractable post; weight transmitting connection between weight-bearing sub-member and wheels: Official notice is taken of conventional rail bogie center pivot and side bearing architecture (central pivot with laterally offset bearing surfaces) and use of locking members to restrain pivot. Whiston teaches rail wheel support structures (mounting structure assembly 46 and axle box assembly 50) with pivot coupling (pivot pin 82) and load transmission through structural members. Keator evidences selectively engageable locking members (pin 98/bolt 112) used to lock relative movement. The combination yields the claimed mounting member features in a support structure for bimodal wheel sets.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 14)
It would have been obvious to implement known bogie pivot/side-bearing support and selective locking in a dual-mode wheel support structure to allow rail tracking pivot while enabling selective restraint for roadway stability, and to select a practical wheel radius differential (e.g., a few inches) as a predictable design optimization for clearance and transition ramp geometry.
──────────────────────────────────────── 15. A vehicle support structure, as recited in claim 14, including two pairs of bimodal wheel sets.
CLAIM 15 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF KEATOR AND WHISTON)
Claim 15 includes all limitations of claim 14, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, two pairs of bimodal wheel sets: Langenbeck teaches multiple wheel/hub locations at front and rear (hubs 21, 22) and on both lateral sides, evidencing multiple pairs; scaling to two pairs in a support structure is a predictable design choice to meet load/vehicle length requirements.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 15)
It would have been obvious to provide two pairs of bimodal wheel sets to increase load capacity and distribute support forces, a predictable scaling consistent with multi-axle vehicle design.
──────────────────────────────────────── 16. A vehicle support structure, as recited in claim 15, wherein the weight transmitting connection comprises the laterally outward ends of the weight bearing sub-member resting on top of vertically oriented bolster springs, the bolster spring's lower ends in turn resting on a member of a side frame, each side frame including bearing mounts in which are received bimodal wheel set axles.
CLAIM 16 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Claim 16 includes all limitations of claim 15, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, bolster springs, side frames, and bearing mounts receiving axles: Official notice is taken that conventional rail bogies/trucks commonly include (i) a bolster supported by vertically oriented springs (bolster springs) resting on side frames and (ii) side frames including bearing mounts receiving wheelset axles, providing predictable weight transmission and suspension in rail vehicles.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 16)
It would have been obvious to employ conventional bogie spring/side-frame/bearing-mount architecture to provide suspension and reliable load transmission for the bimodal wheel sets, yielding predictable ride and structural performance.
──────────────────────────────────────── 17. A vehicle support structure, as recited in claim 16, said mounting member including a motor mount, said structure further including at least one motor connected to drive rotational movement of one or more of the wheel sets.
CLAIM 17 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON)
Claim 17 includes all limitations of claim 16, which are met as set forth above.
Additionally, motor mount and at least one motor driving one or more wheel sets: Langenbeck teaches motors 40 coupled to hubs 20 for driving (with on-board power system 55/57 and control 60). Whiston teaches hydraulic drive motors 78 coupled to rail wheels to provide power to rail wheels. These teachings disclose providing a motor/motor mounting associated with the wheel support structure to drive wheel rotation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 17)
It would have been obvious to include a motor and motor mount on the support structure to provide motive power to wheel sets as taught by Langenbeck and/or Whiston, enabling self-propelled operation with predictable propulsion control.
F. CLAIM 18 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3) AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF KEATOR (REFERENCE 2).
──────────────────────────────────────── 18. A process for attaching to a train on a train track one or more autonomously drivable vehicles, said vehicles including coaxially mounted roadway and railway wheels, the radii of the former exceeding the radii of the latter by an amount less that the height of the rails of the track, the process comprising positioning said vehicles at one or more holding locations selected from the group consisting of a second railway track and a roadway crossing, the roadway crossing having inclined ramps adapted to engage the roadway wheels of the vehicles as the vehicles approach and depart from the roadway, the process further comprising autonomously driving each of said vehicles from said holding location onto the train track and into engagement with adjacent train vehicles and coupling it to those adjacent train vehicles.
CLAIM 18 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON AND KEATOR)
Autonomously drivable vehicles with coaxially mounted roadway and railway wheels; radius differential less than rail height: Langenbeck teaches vehicle 10 with dual-function hubs 20 having rail-engaging annular surface 23 and road tire 27 on rim profile 25 (coaxial), with a configured radius difference enabling non-contact/clearance in rail mode and road mode (FIGS. 9-10). Langenbeck teaches on-board computer system 60 and independent motors 40 enabling automated control.
Holding locations including second track and/or roadway crossing: Langenbeck teaches vehicles using transition areas and sidings via switches (vehicles can be shunted onto a siding). Keator likewise teaches driving off tracks onto roadway regions and facilitating mounting/dismounting at prepared locations.
Roadway crossing having inclined ramps engaging roadway wheels as approach/depart: Langenbeck teaches inclined plane 110 as transition ramp engaged by pneumatic tires 27 (FIGS. 7-8). Keator teaches preparing regions between/outside rails (fill/grade) to facilitate going onto/off rails (a ramp/grade concept).
Autonomously driving each vehicle from holding location onto train track and into engagement and coupling to adjacent train vehicles: Langenbeck teaches coordinated vehicle operation and track switching to position vehicles on track. Whiston teaches coupler assembly 52 with coupler knuckle 70 and remotely operable latch cylinder 74 for coupling to railway vehicles, enabling coupling once vehicles are brought into engagement.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 18)
It would have been obvious to use Langenbeck’s dual-mode transition ramps and automated vehicle control to move vehicles from a staging location onto a track, and to use Whiston’s known remotely operable couplers to couple the vehicles into a train, with Keator evidencing prepared on/off-track transition regions, thereby enabling predictable automated train assembly operations.
G. CLAIM 19 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER LANGENBECK (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF WHISTON (REFERENCE 3) AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF OFFICIAL NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL TRAIN CONTROL/OPERATIONS (LIMITED).
NOTE ON OFFICIAL NOTICE (LIMITED): Official notice is taken that train operations commonly involve (i) route databases/timetables, (ii) sensing train position relative to track features using known sensors (including GPS-based systems), (iii) controlling train segment speeds and spacing for coupling/uncoupling operations, and (iv) issuing commands to vehicles/equipment for switching and movement coordination. Applicant is invited to traverse official notice.
──────────────────────────────────────── 19. A process for operating a train on a railway track, the train comprising a plurality of autonomously drivable vehicles capable of operating on both railways and roadways by virtue of coaxially mounted roadway and railway wheels, the radii of the former exceeding the radii of the latter by an amount less that the height of the rails of the track, the track including one or more roadway-railway transition crossings having inclined ramps adapted to engage the roadway wheels of the vehicles as the vehicles approach and depart from the roadways, the process further comprising merging and demerging individual vehicles to and from the train while the train is in continuous or intermittent motion, the process comprising: a. Establish a database of (i) a railway route, from a point of origin to a point of destination, to be taken by the train, including all roadway-railway transition crossings on the route adapted for merging and demerging vehicles to or from the train and of (ii) the identity of autonomously controlled vehicles to be included in the train and the locations, along said route, at which each of said vehicles is to be merged into the train and at which each of said vehicles is to be demerged from the train b. Assemble initial train components and control train to begin travel from its point or origin to its ultimate destination. c. As the train proceeds from its point of origin toward its point of destination, sense when the train approaches a roadway crossing location along said route at which any of said vehicles is to be merged into or demerged from the train, identify and establish communication with all train vehicles to be merged or demerged at that crossing and identify the train inter-vehicle positions at which those vehicles are to be merged or demerged d. Uncouple any train vehicles forward and rearward of said positions and control the speed and direction of any train vehicles rearward of said positions to provide intervehicle train space for the mergers and demergers e. When said space is at a transition crossing at which mergers or demergers associated with that space are to occur, signal each vehicle to be demerged at that crossing as it approaches that crossing to drive away from the railway at that crossing and signal any vehicle to be merged at that crossing and at that train space to drive onto the railway as that train space approaches the crossing f. Control the speed of all vehicles rearward of each merger-demerger intervehicle position to bring the forward and rearward vehicles at those positions into coupling position and then couple those vehicles g. Resume normal train speed.
CLAIM 19 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (LANGENBECK IN VIEW OF WHISTON; OFFICIAL NOTICE)
Preamble vehicle/track/ramp features: Langenbeck teaches dual-mode vehicles 10 with coaxial rail/road wheel structures (annular surface 23 and tire 27) and transition ramps (inclined plane 110) for roadway-railway transitions (FIGS. 7-10), and teaches coordinated operation of groups of vehicles using communication means, including GPS positioning transceivers and other intercommunication methods.
Step (a) database of route including transition crossings and vehicle identities and merge/demerge locations: Langenbeck teaches ordering/groups of vehicles by destination and use of communication and positioning (GPS) and track routing (switches). Official notice is taken that maintaining route and scheduled stop/exit information in a database for train/vehicle control is conventional in automated/managed rail operations.
Step (b) assemble initial train components and begin travel: Whiston teaches coupling capability via coupler assembly 52; Langenbeck teaches coordinated multi-vehicle operation on a common track. Assembling and initiating travel is a predictable operation using such coupled/controlled vehicles (official notice).
Step (c) sense approach to crossing, identify vehicles to merge/demerge, establish communication, identify inter-vehicle positions: Langenbeck teaches vehicle intercommunication and sensing/positioning methods (including GPS), and switch/crossing identification for exiting vehicles. Official notice is taken that sensing train position relative to known crossings and identifying target vehicles/positions for operations is conventional.
Step (d) uncouple forward/rearward vehicles and control speed/direction of rearward vehicles to create space: Whiston teaches remotely operable couplers (latch cylinder 74 operating coupler latch 72; coupler knuckle 70), enabling uncoupling/coupling. Official notice is taken that controlling speeds of train segments to open a coupling gap is a conventional operational technique.
Step (e) when space reaches transition crossing, signal vehicle to demerge to drive away and/or signal vehicle to merge to drive onto rail: Langenbeck teaches transition crossings via inclined plane 110 enabling driving onto/off rails, and communication for coordinated operations; Whiston teaches remote command/control architectures. Thus, signaling vehicles to execute the transition at a crossing is taught/obvious.
Step (f) control speeds to bring vehicles into coupling position and couple: Whiston teaches coupling hardware and remote latch actuation; speed control to achieve coupling alignment is conventional (official notice).
Step (g) resume normal speed: Resuming normal speed after an operational maneuver is conventional (official notice).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 19)
It would have been obvious to integrate Whiston’s remotely operable coupling/uncoupling hardware and remote command concepts with Langenbeck’s dual-mode vehicles, transition ramps, and inter-vehicle communication/positioning to perform controlled merge/demerge operations at designated crossings, because doing so predictably enables flexible routing, staging, and dynamic consist management using known vehicle control, sensing, and coupling techniques.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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 3615