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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Examiner believes the last term in claim 10 should be “the traction system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (2018/0178775) and Penney et al. (2024/0239198).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claim 7, Ono teaches (Fig. 1) a system and method comprising:
an energy provision system (36 and 48) configured to provide a first voltage (42b);
a first converter (40) configured to increase the first voltage from the energy provision system from the first voltage into at least a second voltage (42a)([0032]);
a traction system (32, 34) of a vehicle configured to be powered by the second voltage from the first converter;
a second converter (54) configured to decrease the first voltage from the energy provision system from the first voltage to a third voltage (42c) which is less than the second voltage ([0034]); and
an auxiliary system (52) of the vehicle configured to be powered by the third voltage of from the second converter that is less than the second voltage.
Ono fails to explicitly teach the use of an off-board source to provide power to the vehicle. Penney teaches a similar system and method (Fig. 1) to that of Ono. Penney teaches an energy provision system (124), a first converter (126), a traction system (116), a second converter (128), and an auxiliary system (156).
Penney also teaches the energy provision system configured to receive a charging current and a powering/fourth voltage from an off-board source (136), the charging current configured to charge the energy provision system ([0026]) and the powering/fourth voltage configured to provide power to the traction system ([0027] via 132 and 126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Penney’s off-board source into Ono’s invention to allow for additional power to be received in the vehicle system to recharge the energy provision system and provide additional power to the traction system as needed.
Also, Penney fails to explicitly teach the fourth voltage (output from off-board source 136) being at or above the second voltage, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fourth voltage be at or above the second voltage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Ono teaches the energy provision system includes a bank of two or more energy systems (36 and 48), each of the two or more energy systems independently connected through the first converter (40) to the traction system (32, 34), the two or more energy systems configured such that one or more of the two or more energy systems are configured to power the auxiliary system (via 54).
Regarding claim 4, Ono teaches the traction system includes one or more of a traction inverter (34), a traction motor (32), and a resistor grid.
Regarding claim 5, Ono teaches the auxiliary system includes implements for maintenance of wayside vehicle ([0033]; lights to see in the dark).
Regarding claim 6, Ono teaches the auxiliary system of the vehicle is configured to be powered by the third voltage (42c) from the second converter (54) separately of the traction system (32, 34) of the vehicle being powered by the second voltage (42a) from the first converter (40).
Regarding claim 9, Penney teaches the off-board source including one or more of a trolley line, a catenary, a charging station, or an electrified third rail ([0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Penney teaches recharging an energy storage device with the second voltage ([0024]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (2018/0178775) and Penney et al. (2024/0239198) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitanaka (2011/0166736).
Ono and Penney teach the system as described above. Ono also teaches the auxiliary system further comprises a thermal management system (i.e. seat heater) ([0033]). Ono fails to explicitly teach the auxiliary system comprising an air compressor. Kitanaka teaches a similar system (Fig. 1) to that of Ono. Kitanaka teaches a traction system (50, 71) and an auxiliary system (31), just like in Ono’s system. Kitanaka teaches the auxiliary system comprising an air compressor ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement an air compressor into Ono’s auxiliary system, since Kitanaka teaches a similar auxiliary system comprising an air compressor and Ono was silent as to if an air compressor was included in their auxiliary system and Kitanaka teaches an example where one is included in the auxiliary system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendments to the independent claims, the Examiner believes that the Ono/Penney combination teaches these limitations. The Penney reference teaches the off-board source (136) providing power to the traction battery (124) and the vehicle (including the traction system, 116) via the high-voltage bus (152).
The Applicant points out that Penney does not teach power from the off-board source being used to directly power the traction system, and also that Penney’s vehicles that have traction systems do not rely on the external power supply while operating. The Examiner may agree with those assertions, however, these limitations are not explicitly described in the claim language. Therefore, these arguments are moot.
Lastly, regarding the magnitude of voltage on different segments of the vehicle, the Ono and Penney references teach power being provided and converted at different segments in the system (i.e. the first converter supplying to the traction system; and Penney’s off-board source converter (132) that supplies power between the traction battery and the first converter). These references teach the general conditions of the claim, and the various desired voltage levels that can be supplied and converted to by the converters is a mere matter of design choice and involves only routine skill in the art, as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
6/5/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights