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 of record have been considered to the extent indicated in the record.
______________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
Analysis
Claim 1 recites "a control unit motive systems configured to control one or more operations of the one or more motive systems." The phrase "control unit motive systems" is unclear because it omits the grammatical relationship between the control unit and the motive systems. It is unclear whether the claim requires a control unit of the motive systems, a control unit for the motive systems, or a separate control-unit motive system. Because the control unit defines the controller that allegedly controls the powered footing assemblies and motive-system operations, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Suggested Correction
Claim 1 may be clarified by amending the phrase to recite, for example, "a control unit of the one or more motive systems configured to control one or more operations of the one or more motive systems," if such wording is supported by the originally filed disclosure.
______________________________
Claim 20
Analysis
Claim 20 recites "a pressure control system comprising valves" but later recites that the control unit controls "the pressure system." It is unclear whether "the pressure system" refers to the previously recited pressure control system or to a different pressure-related system. Because the control unit limitation identifies the subsystems controlled by the motive-system controller, the inconsistent terminology makes the scope unclear.
Suggested Correction
Claim 20 may be clarified by replacing "the pressure system" with "the pressure control system," if such wording is supported by the originally filed disclosure.
______________________________
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1 - Lohr, US 6,095,055 A, Rail transport unit for carrying a load consisting of a road vehicle, issued August 1, 2000.
Reference 2 - Soule et al., US 2022/0289255 A1, Electric rail vehicle, published September 15, 2022.
Reference 3 - Randall et al., US 10,514,700 B2, Systems and methods for automatically managing vehicle storage areas, issued December 24, 2019.
Reference 4 - Jones et al., US 10,551,257 B2, Railway freight car coupling force monitoring system, issued February 4, 2020.
Reference 5 - Mikhail, US 6,206,215 B1, Rail car coupler, issued March 27, 2001.
Reference 6 - Storms et al., US 9,971,356 B2, Retractable aerodynamic structures for cargo bodies and methods of controlling positioning of the same, issued May 15, 2018.
Reference 7 - McClanachan et al., US 8,276,522 B2, Steering railway bogie, issued October 2, 2012.
Reference 8 - Bieker et al., US 5,090,333 A, Bogie for high-speed railborne vehicle, issued February 25, 1992.
______________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
______________________________
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 1
1. An autonomous rail vehicle, comprising: one or more motive systems comprising: a bogie assembly; a vehicle frame operably coupled with the bogie assembly; and a control unit motive systems configured to control one or more operations of the one or more motive systems; and a trailer operably coupled with the one or more motive systems, the trailer comprising surfaces defining a cavity configured to receive one or more cargo containers, the trailer including one or more powered footing assemblies configured to be controlled by the control unit of the one or more motive systems, wherein the one or more powered footing assemblies are configured to move between a first position and a second position to change a vertical position of the trailer relative to a position of the one or more motive systems.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "An autonomous rail vehicle"
Reference 2 teaches electric rail vehicle 100 configured as an autonomous electric rail bogie/vehicle for railway infrastructure. Reference 2 teaches sensor suite 150 and controller 160, and teaches that the controller implements autonomous vehicle control.
Limitation: "one or more motive systems comprising: a bogie assembly; a vehicle frame operably coupled with the bogie assembly"
Reference 2 teaches electric rail vehicle 100 as a powered rail bogie/motive module. It includes chassis 130, chassis suspension 170, electric powertrain 180, rail wheelsets, and rail wheels. Chassis 130 corresponds to the vehicle frame and is operably coupled with the bogie/powertrain/wheelset assembly.
Limitation: "a control unit ... configured to control one or more operations of the one or more motive systems"
Reference 2 teaches controller 160. Controller 160 includes or cooperates with battery management, motor-control, inverter, and brake-control functions, receives inputs from sensor suite 150, and controls the electric powertrain 180 and autonomous vehicle operation.
Limitation: "a trailer operably coupled with the one or more motive systems"
Reference 1 teaches freight car structure 1 operably coupled to axle units or bogies 4 and 5 through composite interfaces 6 and 7. Reference 2 also teaches paired electric rail vehicles supporting a payload or spanning structure. The freight car structure/trailer is therefore coupled with the motive systems.
Limitation: "the trailer comprising surfaces defining a cavity configured to receive one or more cargo containers"
Reference 1 teaches sidepieces 8 and 9, bed 27, internal carrier structures 23 and 24, transverse opening 13, and support brackets 29-32 with rotary locking devices for containers or swap bodies 21 and 22. The sidepieces and bed define a container-receiving load space/cavity.
Limitation: "the trailer including one or more powered footing assemblies configured to be controlled by the control unit"
Reference 1 teaches lifting means 16 and extendable props 37, 38, 115, and 116 on the freight car structure for lifting and supporting the structure during coupling/uncoupling. Reference 3 teaches powered landing gear 606 and powered landing gear on trailer 206 that automatically raises/lowers the trailer based on sensor and control-module operation. When applied to the autonomous motive systems of Reference 2, the controller-directed powered landing gear corresponds to powered footing assemblies controlled by the motive-system control unit.
Limitation: "configured to move between a first position and a second position to change a vertical position of the trailer relative to a position of the one or more motive systems"
Reference 1 teaches the lifting means/props raising and lowering the freight car structure relative to axle units or bogies during separation and reconnection. Reference 3 teaches landing gear 606 extending and retracting to raise or lower trailer 602. These teachings meet or render obvious the first/second position and vertical-position-change limitation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Lohr's separable rail freight-car/trailer structure with Soule's autonomous electric rail bogie/control architecture and Randall's powered controller-directed landing gear so the trailer can be autonomously supported, raised, lowered, coupled, and decoupled without manual jacking. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already uses lifting props to separate the freight car structure from bogies, Reference 2 supplies the autonomous motive controller for rail operation, and Reference 3 supplies the known powered trailer-support mechanism and control logic needed to automate the height adjustment.
______________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 4 and Reference 5.
Claim 2
2. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , further comprising a coupler assembly operably coupled with the bogie assembly, the coupler assembly including one or more sensors configured to detect one or more forces acting on the coupler assembly, the coupler assembly including an actuator configured to control a position of the coupler assembly between an open position and a closed position based at least in part on the detection of the one or more forces acting on the coupler assembly.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "further comprising a coupler assembly operably coupled with the bogie assembly"
The base combination provides the autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1. Reference 5 teaches a standard Type-E or Type-F railroad coupler having coupler head 900, knuckle 901, knuckle lock 955, lock-lift assembly 906, and actuator 910. The coupler is operably coupled with a rail car or bogie assembly for coupling/uncoupling rail vehicles.
Limitation: "one or more sensors configured to detect one or more forces acting on the coupler assembly"
Reference 4 teaches coupler 1 with strain sensing elements/transducers 10a, 10b, 11a, and 11b mounted to the coupler shank and wireless sensing unit 8. These components measure tensile and compressive coupling forces acting at coupler face 7a or knuckle 7b and transmit force data to a receiver.
Limitation: "an actuator configured to control a position of the coupler assembly between an open position and a closed position"
Reference 5 teaches electric actuator 910, such as a motor or solenoid, connected by actuator shaft 926, lever 924, modified lock-lift toggle 904, lock leg 905, and lock-lift assembly 906 to move coupler lock 955. Reference 5 teaches moving the lock toward lock-set/thrown positions, thereby controlling the coupler between coupled/closed and uncoupled/open operating states.
Limitation: "based at least in part on the detection of the one or more forces acting on the coupler assembly"
Reference 4 teaches real-time coupler force detection and communication of force readings. Reference 5 teaches automated coupler actuation controlled by a train operation-control system. Applying Reference 4 force feedback to Reference 5 actuator control in the autonomous controller architecture of Reference 2 renders obvious controlling coupler actuation based at least partly on detected coupler forces.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add Jones' coupler-force sensing and Mikhail's actuator-controlled coupler to the autonomous rail vehicle because autonomous coupling/uncoupling requires the controller to know whether the coupler is loaded before commanding powered lock/knuckle movement. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 4 provides the force data needed to avoid actuating under excessive draft or buff load, Reference 5 provides the powered coupler hardware, and Reference 2 supplies the controller architecture for autonomous rail operation.
______________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 4 and Reference 5.
Claim 3
3. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 2 , wherein the actuator of the coupler assembly is configured to control the position of the coupler assembly between the open position and the closed position to couple the bogie assembly with a rail vehicle or decouple the bogie assembly from the rail vehicle while the autonomous rail vehicle is in transit.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "wherein the actuator ... is configured to control the position ... between the open position and the closed position"
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes the force-sensing coupler of Reference 4 and the actuator-controlled coupler of Reference 5. Reference 5 actuator 910 moves coupler lock 955 through lock-lift assembly 906 to lock-set or thrown positions, thereby controlling the coupler between open and closed operating states.
Limitation: "to couple the bogie assembly with a rail vehicle or decouple the bogie assembly from the rail vehicle"
Reference 5 teaches automatic uncoupling of railroad cars and compatibility with standard rail couplers. In the base autonomous rail vehicle, the coupler assembly is provided on the motive/bogie assembly so that the bogie assembly can couple with or decouple from another rail vehicle.
Limitation: "while the autonomous rail vehicle is in transit"
Reference 4 teaches measuring and recording coupling and in-train forces during operation of freight rail cars, including over-the-rail operation. Reference 5 teaches control by the train operation-control system. In view of Reference 2's autonomous rail controller, it would have been obvious to perform the controlled actuation during operating/transit conditions when the force feedback indicates a suitable load condition.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the force-informed powered coupler to couple or decouple during transit or rail operation because autonomous rail modules benefit from routing, consist-management, and decoupling operations without personnel at the coupler. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 4 monitors in-train forces during operation, Reference 5 provides train-control-system actuation of the coupler, and Reference 2 provides autonomous control that can coordinate those operations with vehicle state.
______________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 4
4. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , wherein the vehicle frame includes structures configured to control a direction of air moving around the vehicle frame.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "wherein the vehicle frame includes structures configured to control a direction of air moving around the vehicle frame"
The base combination provides the autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1. Reference 6 teaches aerodynamic structures for cargo bodies and other large cargo vehicles, including side panels, upper panels, trailer skirts, behind-bogie skirts, behind-bogie scoops 3210, gap-sealing devices, and upper streamlining devices. These structures redirect airflow around the vehicle body to reduce drag. Applied to the frame/body of the autonomous rail vehicle, those structures correspond to structures configured to control the direction of air moving around the vehicle frame.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add aerodynamic airflow-control structures to the autonomous electric rail vehicle to reduce drag and improve energy efficiency. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 relies on onboard battery 182 and electric powertrain 180, so reducing aerodynamic losses would predictably conserve stored energy and improve range, while Reference 6 provides known airflow-control structures for large cargo vehicles.
______________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 5
5. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , further comprising one or more adjustable structures operably coupled with the vehicle frame, wherein the one or more adjustable structures are configured to move between extended states and retracted states.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "one or more adjustable structures operably coupled with the vehicle frame"
The base combination provides the autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1. Reference 6 teaches adjustable aerodynamic panels, trailer skirts 2910/3010, behind-bogie skirt 3110, behind-bogie scoops 3210, inflatable gap-sealing devices, and upper streamlining devices. These components are mounted to a vehicle cargo body or frame region and are operably coupled to the vehicle for controlled positioning.
Limitation: "configured to move between extended states and retracted states"
Reference 6 teaches stowed/retracted and deployed/extended states, including folding aerodynamic structures, sliding aerodynamic structures, adjustable trailer skirts shown in stowed and extended positions, and behind-bogie scoops 3210 shown in retracted and extended positions. Thus, Reference 6 teaches adjustable structures moving between extended and retracted states.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use adjustable rather than fixed aerodynamic structures so the autonomous rail vehicle can reduce drag during travel while retracting the structures when clearance, loading, unloading, coupling, or maintenance requires a compact configuration. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 6 expressly teaches automatic deployment/retraction based on operating conditions, and Reference 2's controller-driven electric vehicle would benefit from that known efficiency and clearance tradeoff.
______________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 6
6. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , further comprising one or more energy storage devices disposed onboard the one or more motive systems, wherein the one or more energy storage devices are configured to provide power to one or more systems of the one or more motive systems.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "one or more energy storage devices disposed onboard the one or more motive systems"
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the base combination. Reference 2 teaches battery 182 onboard electric rail vehicle 100. Battery 182 is disposed on the electric motive rail vehicle and supplies electrical energy for operation.
Limitation: "configured to provide power to one or more systems of the one or more motive systems"
Reference 2 teaches battery 182 electrically coupled to electric powertrain 180 and associated controller/power systems. The battery therefore provides power to motive-system components, including propulsion, control, and auxiliary systems.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide onboard battery energy storage on the autonomous rail motive systems because Reference 2's electric rail vehicle uses battery 182 to power the electric powertrain and controller-controlled vehicle functions. The combination makes technical sense because autonomous rail modules must carry or receive electrical energy for propulsion, braking control, sensors, and onboard computing.
______________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 7
7. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 6 , wherein the one or more motive systems include a thermal control system including conduits disposed proximate to the one or more energy storage devices, the thermal control system comprising a fluid control device configured to direct a coolant through the conduits to control a thermal energy level of the one or more energy storage devices.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "the one or more motive systems include a thermal control system"
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and therefore includes Reference 2 battery 182. Reference 2 teaches cooling subsystem 184 for rejecting heat from the electric motor, motor controller, and batteries.
Limitation: "including conduits disposed proximate to the one or more energy storage devices"
Reference 2 teaches a liquid cooling loop thermally connected to the battery and a working fluid circulated through a radiator or heat exchanger. A liquid cooling loop necessarily includes conduits or passages routed proximate to components being cooled, including battery 182.
Limitation: "a fluid control device configured to direct a coolant through the conduits to control a thermal energy level of the one or more energy storage devices"
Reference 2 teaches liquid working fluid, such as oil or water/glycol, circulated through the cooling subsystem and thermally connected to the battery. The fluid circulation components direct coolant to regulate battery thermal energy.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a coolant-loop thermal control system for the onboard battery because Reference 2 teaches that the cooling subsystem rejects heat from batteries and other electrical components. The combination makes technical sense because battery temperature affects power availability, component life, and safe operation of an autonomous electric rail vehicle.
______________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 8
8. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 7 , wherein the one or more motive systems include one or more motor units configured to provide one or more of propulsion efforts or braking efforts to move the autonomous rail vehicle along the route, wherein the conduits of the thermal control system are configured to direct at least some of the coolant through the one or more motor units to control a thermal energy level of the one or more motor units.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "one or more motor units configured to provide one or more of propulsion efforts or braking efforts"
Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Reference 2 teaches electric powertrain 180 having a traction motor and wheelsets. Reference 2 also teaches dynamic and regenerative braking, hydraulic brakes, and braking controlled by the vehicle controller.
Limitation: "to move the autonomous rail vehicle along the route"
Reference 2 teaches electric rail vehicle 100 moving cargo via railway infrastructure. The electric motor/wheelset system moves the vehicle along the rail route.
Limitation: "the conduits ... direct at least some of the coolant through the one or more motor units"
Reference 2 teaches cooling subsystem 184 rejecting heat from the electric motor, motor controller, and batteries using liquid working fluid circulated through heat-exchange components. Routing coolant to or through motor-related thermal paths meets or renders obvious cooling the motor units.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to route coolant for both the battery and the electric motor units because Reference 2 teaches a cooling subsystem for the electric motor, motor controller, and batteries. The combination makes technical sense because the same autonomous electric motive system generates heat in both the stored-energy subsystem and the traction motor subsystem during propulsion and braking.
______________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 9
9. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , wherein the bogie assembly includes a first frame portion and a second frame portion operably coupled with the first frame portion, wherein the first frame portion is configured to move in one or more directions relative to the second frame portion.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "the bogie assembly includes a first frame portion and a second frame portion operably coupled with the first frame portion"
Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Reference 2 teaches chassis 130 and wheelset/axle/chassis-suspension structures within electric rail vehicle 100. Reference 2 further teaches payload interface 110 rotatably mounted to chassis 130 through a bolster bowl and suspension elements coupling the payload interface and chassis. These relatively movable vehicle support portions correspond to first and second frame portions in a broad bogie/frame assembly.
Limitation: "wherein the first frame portion is configured to move in one or more directions relative to the second frame portion"
Reference 2 teaches payload suspension 120 and chassis suspension 170, including suspension elements that provide pitch, roll, lateral shear stiffness, yaw/rotational compliance, wheel load equalization, and relative movement between wheelset/axle structures, chassis, and payload interface. These teachings meet or render obvious the claimed relative movement between frame portions.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use relatively movable frame portions in the autonomous rail bogie so the vehicle can maintain wheel loading, isolate payload/electronics, and accommodate track irregularities. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 expressly uses suspension and rotatable support structures to dampen force transmission and maintain rail contact while carrying container loads.
______________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 10
10. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 9 , wherein the bogie assembly includes damper assemblies extending between the first frame portion and the second frame portion configured to control movement of the first frame portion in the one or more directions relative to the second frame portion.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "damper assemblies extending between the first frame portion and the second frame portion"
Claim 10 depends from claim 9. Reference 2 teaches payload suspension 120 and chassis suspension 170 with damping elements, including dampers and heavy-duty gas-hydraulic dampers, positioned between relatively movable vehicle structures such as chassis 130, wheelsets/axles, and payload interface 110.
Limitation: "configured to control movement of the first frame portion in the one or more directions relative to the second frame portion"
Reference 2 teaches that the suspension and dampers dampen force transmission, reduce lateral oscillation, control hunting, and maintain desirable dynamic behavior in loaded and unloaded conditions. The damper assemblies therefore control relative movement between the frame portions.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide damper assemblies between the relatively movable frame portions because Reference 2 teaches that dampers in the suspension reduce shock, hunting, oscillation, and vibration. The combination makes technical sense because the autonomous motive system carries cargo and electronics that benefit from controlled relative movement and stable rail dynamics.
______________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 11
11. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 10 , wherein the damper assemblies include one or more vertical damper assemblies and one or more lateral damper assemblies, the one or more vertical damper assemblies configured to control vertical movement of the first frame portion relative to the second frame portion, the one or more lateral damper assemblies configured to control lateral movement of the first frame portion relative to the second frame portion.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "the damper assemblies include one or more vertical damper assemblies"
Claim 11 depends from claim 10. Reference 2 teaches vertically aligned spring elements, coil springs, chevron springs, gas-hydraulic dampers, and chassis suspension elements associated with wheel support and vertical stiffness. Those components teach vertical damping/control between movable frame portions.
Limitation: "and one or more lateral damper assemblies"
Reference 2 teaches payload suspension and chassis suspension providing lateral shear stiffness, lateral oscillation damping, anti-roll bars, chevron springs, and dampers for railcar dynamic behavior. These components teach lateral damping/control between relatively movable frame portions.
Limitation: "configured to control vertical movement ... and lateral movement"
Reference 2 teaches that the suspension elements control vertical load carrying, wheel load equalization, lateral oscillation, and hunting. Thus, the vertical and lateral damping assemblies control vertical and lateral relative movement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide both vertical and lateral damping because rail bogies experience vertical shocks from track irregularities and lateral/yaw forces during curves and hunting. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 already selects suspension and damping structures to balance steering performance, stability, vertical natural frequency, and lateral dynamics.
______________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 8.
Claim 12
12. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 10 , wherein the damper assemblies are double-acting damper assemblies, wherein the double-acting damper assemblies are configured to control one or more forces between the first frame portion and the second frame portion in at least two directions.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "the damper assemblies are double-acting damper assemblies"
Claim 12 depends from claim 10. Reference 2 teaches hydraulic/gas-hydraulic dampers in the chassis suspension. Reference 8 expressly teaches a railway bogie in which a roll stabilizer may be designed as a double-acting hydraulic damper, with one end attached to the axle bearing and the other end attached to the bogie frame. The double-acting hydraulic damper of Reference 8 supplies the express double-acting damper teaching.
Limitation: "configured to control one or more forces between the first frame portion and the second frame portion in at least two directions"
Reference 8 teaches the double-acting hydraulic damper acting between bogie frame 4 and axle bearing housing 2 in the horizontal longitudinal direction. Reference 2 teaches suspension/damper assemblies between relatively movable rail-vehicle frame and wheelset portions. Together, the references teach controlling force between frame portions in opposed directions of damper movement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Bieker's double-acting hydraulic damper in the bogie suspension of the autonomous rail vehicle because controlling motion in opposed directions provides stable response after rail impacts, curves, and payload-induced oscillations. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2's autonomous rail vehicle already uses dampers for chassis/wheelset dynamics, and Reference 8 supplies an express railway-bogie double-acting hydraulic damper between bogie frame and axle-bearing structure.
______________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 13
13. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 9 , further comprising wheels operably coupled with the first frame portion, wherein the first frame portion is configured to move in the one or more directions relative to the second frame portion responsive to a displacement of at least one of the wheels of the first frame portion.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "wheels operably coupled with the first frame portion"
Claim 13 depends from claim 9. Reference 2 teaches rail wheels and wheelsets as part of electric powertrain 180 and chassis suspension 170. The wheels are operably coupled to the movable wheelset/axle/frame portion.
Limitation: "the first frame portion is configured to move ... responsive to a displacement of at least one of the wheels"
Reference 2 teaches chassis suspension 170 independently coupling each rail wheel or wheelset to the chassis, with suspension/damper structures accommodating wheel displacement, track irregularities, and wheel load equalization. Thus, the first frame portion moves relative to the second frame portion responsive to wheel displacement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the wheel-coupled frame portion to move in response to wheel displacement because rail suspension must accommodate track irregularities while maintaining wheel/rail contact. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 expressly uses chassis suspension to dampen shock transmission and maintain suitable dynamics for the electric rail vehicle.
______________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 14
14. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 13 , further comprising one or more fastener devices extending between the first frame portion and the second frame portion, wherein the first frame portion is pivotally connecting to the second frame portion via the one or more fastener devices, wherein the first frame portion is configured to move relative to the second frame portion by pivoting about the one or more fastener devices.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "one or more fastener devices extending between the first frame portion and the second frame portion"
Claim 14 depends from claim 13. Reference 7 teaches a steering railway bogie having frame 11, front wheelset 12, rear wheelset 13, steering linkages 21/25/26, linkage support 23, and pivots 24, 27, 31, 62, and 64 connecting the linkage and frame/body structures. The pivots/fasteners extend between relatively movable bogie portions.
Limitation: "the first frame portion is pivotally connecting to the second frame portion via the one or more fastener devices"
Reference 7 teaches that linkage arms and wheelset/body linkages are pivotally connected so changes in wheelset position change the relative position of the vehicle body and frame. The pivot fasteners therefore provide pivotal connection between relatively movable frame portions.
Limitation: "the first frame portion is configured to move relative to the second frame portion by pivoting about the one or more fastener devices"
Reference 7 teaches front and rear wheelsets pivoting about vertical axes through pivotally connected linkages to adopt radial steering alignment on curves. This teaches relative movement by pivoting about the fastener/pivot devices.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add McClanachan's pivotal fastener/linkage arrangement to the relatively movable bogie portions because pivotally connected wheelset/body linkages provide controlled wheelset and frame motion on curves. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2's autonomous rail vehicle already requires stable rail dynamics, and Reference 7 supplies a known railway bogie pivot linkage for maintaining wheel alignment and reducing creepage.
______________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 15
15. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , wherein the one or more motive systems include a steering sub-system operably coupled with the bogie assembly, the steering sub-system configured to control an angular position of the autonomous rail vehicle relative to a route along which the autonomous rail vehicle is configured to move, the steering sub-system including one or more sensors operably coupled with the bogie assembly and configured to detect a curvature of the route, the steering sub-system including a wheelset positioning assembly configured to change a position of one or more wheelsets of the one or more motive systems based at least in part on the curvature of the route that is detected.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "a steering sub-system operably coupled with the bogie assembly"
Claim 15 depends from claim 1. Reference 7 teaches a steering railway bogie having steering linkages, wheelset body linkages, alignment rams 30, sensors, and a processor.
Limitation: "configured to control an angular position of the autonomous rail vehicle relative to a route"
Reference 7 teaches controlling relative yaw/body/frame position and radial steering alignment as the bogie negotiates a curved track. This controls angular position relative to the rail route.
Limitation: "one or more sensors ... configured to detect a curvature of the route"
Reference 7 teaches sensors monitoring yaw angle and yaw velocity and a processor estimating track curvature and train speed from sensor input.
Limitation: "a wheelset positioning assembly configured to change a position of one or more wheelsets ... based at least in part on the curvature"
Reference 7 teaches steering linkages and alignment rams 30 that adjust wheelset/body/frame position based on estimated track curvature and current frame positions to minimize wheel contact creepage and maximize stability.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate McClanachan's curvature-based steering subsystem into the autonomous rail vehicle because active wheelset positioning improves curve negotiation. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 provides autonomous rail control and powered wheelsets, while Reference 7 provides the rail-specific sensors, processor logic, linkages, and rams for reducing wheel wear, creepage, and instability on curved track.
______________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 16
16. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 15 , wherein the wheelset positioning assembly includes a powered cylinder device configured to move between one or more positions based at least in part on the curvature of the route that is detected, wherein the powered cylinder device is configured to control one or more of a pitch angle or a rotational position of the one or more wheelsets based at least in part on the position of the powered cylinder device.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "the wheelset positioning assembly includes a powered cylinder device"
Claim 16 depends from claim 15. Reference 7 teaches alignment rams 30 pivotally attached to frame 11 and positioned on opposing sides of the frame. The rams are powered cylinder devices.
Limitation: "configured to move between one or more positions based at least in part on the curvature of the route"
Reference 7 teaches the processor actuating alignment rams 30 in response to estimated track curvature and current frame positions.
Limitation: "configured to control one or more of a pitch angle or a rotational position of the one or more wheelsets"
Reference 7 teaches front and rear wheelsets pivoting about vertical axes through steering linkages so the wheelsets adopt radial steering alignment on curves. The powered rams and linkage system therefore control the rotational position of the wheelsets.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use powered alignment rams as the wheelset positioning assembly because cylinders/rams provide controlled, high-force adjustment of rail wheelset orientation in response to track curvature. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 7's powered ram/linkage arrangement directly addresses curve steering in a railway bogie, and Reference 2's controller/sensor architecture can command such a subsystem in an autonomous vehicle.
______________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 17
17. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , further comprising a pressure control system operably coupled with the one or more motive systems and the trailer, wherein the pressure control system includes valves configured to move between open positions and closed positions based on an operating condition of the autonomous rail vehicle.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "a pressure control system operably coupled with the one or more motive systems and the trailer"
Claim 17 depends from claim 1. Reference 6 teaches electro-pneumatically actuated aerodynamic systems connected with a vehicle ABS controller, valve manifold, pneumatic lines, solenoid trigger, pneumatic valves, air/brake pressure sources, and trailer-mounted aerodynamic devices. Those components teach a pressure-control system coupled with vehicle control hardware and trailer/body devices.
Limitation: "the pressure control system includes valves configured to move between open positions and closed positions"
Reference 6 teaches ABS controller 1915 energizing solenoid 1930 to control air 1940 delivered to pneumatic devices 1950, valve control 418, valve manifold 4320, and switching elements sending power to pneumatic valves. The valves open/close to route pressure to aerodynamic/pneumatic devices.
Limitation: "based on an operating condition of the autonomous rail vehicle"
Reference 6 teaches actuation based on vehicle speed, braking events, direction, wind/pressure conditions, ABS actuation-OK signals, and threshold speeds. These are operating conditions used to control valve/device states.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide the autonomous rail vehicle with a pressure-control/valve system responsive to operating conditions because powered pneumatic devices on a trailer or vehicle body require controlled pressure routing. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 6 ties valve actuation to speed/braking/condition signals, and Reference 2's autonomous controller can use the same type of condition-based logic to coordinate trailer and motive-system pneumatic functions.
______________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 18
18. The autonomous rail vehicle of claim 1 , wherein the one or more motive systems include a braking system configured to control a speed of movement of the autonomous rail vehicle, the braking system including a brake caliper assembly configured to control an amount of pressure that is applied to one or more wheels of the one or more motive systems by one or more brake pads of the braking system.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "a braking system configured to control a speed of movement of the autonomous rail vehicle"
Claim 18 depends from claim 1. Reference 2 teaches electric powertrain 180 with dynamic/regenerative braking and mechanical brakes controlled by the vehicle controller to regulate speed and stop the electric rail vehicle.
Limitation: "the braking system including a brake caliper assembly"
Reference 2 teaches mechanical brakes preferably including disc brakes and/or brake calipers.
Limitation: "configured to control an amount of pressure that is applied to one or more wheels ... by one or more brake pads"
Reference 2 teaches brakes mounted to wheels or wheel pairs and controlled across a high dynamic range of braking force/pressure. Disc-brake calipers apply friction pads against a disc to produce braking force on the wheel assembly, meeting or rendering obvious the pressure-applied-by-brake-pads limitation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use brake calipers and controlled brake pressure on the autonomous electric rail vehicle because Reference 2 expressly teaches controller-operated mechanical braking, disc brakes, brake calipers, hydraulic braking, and high dynamic range brake-force control. The combination makes technical sense because the autonomous rail vehicle needs predictable speed control and stopping in addition to electric propulsion.
______________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 19
19. A method, comprising: changing a position of one or more powered footing assemblies of a trailer from a first position to a second position to change a vertical position of the trailer relative to a position of a first motive system and a position of a second motive system, the trailer extending between a first end operably coupled with the first motive system and a second end operably coupled with the second motive system; and decoupling the trailer from the first and second motive systems by moving the first and second motive systems in a direction away from the trailer, wherein decoupling the trailer from the first and second motive systems includes changing the position of the one or more powered footing assemblies from the second position to the first position.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "changing a position of one or more powered footing assemblies of a trailer from a first position to a second position"
Reference 1 teaches lifting means 16 and extendable props 37, 38, 115, and 116 on freight car structure 1 for raising/lowering the structure during loading/unloading and separation from bogies. Reference 3 teaches powered landing gear 606 extending/retracting to raise or lower trailer 602.
Limitation: "to change a vertical position of the trailer relative to a position of a first motive system and a position of a second motive system"
Reference 1 teaches the freight car structure 1 extending between front axle unit 4 and rear axle unit 5 and being raised/lowered relative to those axle units or bogies. Reference 2 supplies first and second autonomous electric motive systems.
Limitation: "the trailer extending between a first end ... and a second end ..."
Reference 1 teaches freight car structure 1 having front end 2 and rear end 3 coupled to front and rear axle units/bogies through composite interfaces 6 and 7.
Limitation: "decoupling the trailer from the first and second motive systems by moving the first and second motive systems in a direction away from the trailer"
Reference 1 teaches disconnecting/separating the freight car structure from axle units or bogies by vertical and lateral movement, including simultaneous vertical uncoupling of both ends and removal of the freight car structure relative to the axle units. In the modified autonomous system, moving the first and second autonomous motive systems away from the supported trailer performs the claimed decoupling.
Limitation: "changing the position of the one or more powered footing assemblies from the second position to the first position"
Reference 1 teaches lowering/raising the freight car structure through lifting means/props during the uncoupling/reconnection sequence. Reference 3 teaches landing gear extension/retraction to support and raise/lower the trailer. These teachings meet or render obvious changing footing-assembly position during decoupling.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to perform the decoupling method with powered footing assemblies because Reference 1 already decouples a freight car structure from rail bogies using lifting props, and Reference 3 automates trailer height adjustment with powered landing gear. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2's autonomous motive systems can separate from a supported trailer without external manual jack operation, improving unmanned loading, unloading, and consist reconfiguration.
______________________________
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
______________________________
Claim Disposition
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 112
Claims 1 and 20.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-19.
Objected-to Claims
20.
Allowed Claims
None.
______________________________
Conclusion
The IDS and PCT references were reviewed as search leads. The Soule grant and WO 2023/041943 family materials were not separately relied upon because the Soule publication of record provides the needed autonomous electric rail vehicle/controller teachings in a U.S. publication, and Lohr provides the closer separable trailer/footing structure identified by the PCT written opinion.
Peitzke and Beik were also reviewed. Peitzke is useful background for rail shuttle/platform systems, and Beik is useful backup art for electric landing gear, but neither was relied upon because Lohr plus Randall more directly addresses the separable rail trailer and controller-directed powered footing arrangement used in the rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights