DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, claim 15 recites a “means for geo-positioning”, which will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 2, the phrase “is provide as a bolster” should be changed to “is provided as a bolster”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 14 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.
In claim 1, lines 2-3, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “the first portion being mountable to form part a vehicle in use.” Is the second portion not mountable to the vehicle? Does the second portion not form part of the vehicle? How is the phrase “in use” meant to modify this limitation? Are the first or second portions not part of the vehicle when not used?
In claim 1, lines 8-9, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “wherein the first portion of the bogie support frame is designated upon which the actuator is mounted.” It is unclear what role designation has in this structure. For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as reading “wherein the actuator is mounted on the first portion.”
In claim 14, lines 1-2, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “wherein the bogie provides an independent and separately controlled.” An independent and separately controlled what? For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as reading “wherein the bogie provides an independent and separately controlled vehicle.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glinka et al. (US 2016/0318527 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Glinka discloses a bogie to allow transit as a vehicle, including:
a bogie support frame (10) including a first portion (48) and a second portion (18), the first portion being mountable to form part a vehicle in use (Fig. 3) (Para. [0059]);
a suspension system (68) connecting the first portion and second portion (Fig. 3) (Para. [0060]);
at least one wheelset (14) mounted on the second portion, each wheelset including two or more wheels mounted on a wheel axle (Fig. 1) (Para. [0043]); and
an actuator (30) for providing torque to the two or more wheels (Para. [0045]),
wherein the first portion of the bogie support frame (48) is designated upon which the actuator (30) is mounted (Fig. 3) (Para. [0059]).
Referring to Claim 2: Glinka discloses the bogie of claim 1, further including a transmission (32.1, 32.2) coupled directly to the actuator (30.1, 30.2) and the wheel axle (34) (Fig. 2) (Para. [0045]).
Referring to Claim 3: Glinka discloses the bogie of claim 2, wherein the transmission (32.1, 32.2) is mounted to the first portion (18) of the bogie support frame (Fig. 2) (Para. [0045]).
Referring to Claim 4: Glinka discloses the bogie of claims 2 or 3, wherein the transmission (32.1, 32.2) is mounted along an axial axis (38) of the wheel axle (34) (Fig. 2) (Para. [0045]).
Referring to Claim 5: Glinka discloses the bogie of any of claims 2 to 4, wherein the transmission (32.1, 32.2) is mounted centrally between two of the two or more wheels (14.1, 14.2) (Fig. 2) (Para. [0045]).
Referring to Claim 6: Glinka discloses the bogie of any preceding claim, further including a brake assembly (90), wherein the brake assembly is mounted along an axial axis (38) of the wheel axle (34) (Fig. 4) (Para. [0071]).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glinka in view of Madsen (US 2014/0365046 A1).
Referring to Claim 8: Glinka does not teach that the second portion of the bogie support frame includes an electrical induction brake. However, Madsen teaches induction traction motors that are capable of regenerative braking (Para. [0011], last sentence) (see also Para. [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use induction traction motors capable of regenerative braking, as taught by Madsen, in order to conserve energy from braking with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glinka.
Referring to Claim 9: Glinka does not specifically teach that the first portion of the bogie support frame is above the suspension system. However, Glinka teaches an embodiment where “the power supply unit 40 is sprung by the primary spring unit 72 against the wheel sets 14.” (Para. [0065]) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to suspend the first portion of the bogie support frame upwards, above the suspension system, using a primary spring unit, as suggested by Glinka’s Figure 4 embodiment, in order to provide additional damping suspension to the first portion relative to the wheelsets with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glinka in view of CN 102310866.
Referring to Claim 10: Glinka does not teach one or more small object deflectors. However, CN 102310866 teaches a powered bogie further including one or more small object deflectors (16) (Figs 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use a small object deflector, as taught by CN 102310866, in order to deflect small objects from the rail that might interfere with the bogie wheels with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glinka in view of Soule et al. (US 11,338,833 A1).
Referring to Claim 14: Glinka does not teach that the bogie provides an independent and separately controlled. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the bogie provides an independent and separately controlled motive element (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to an provide independent and separately controlled bogies, as taught by Soule, in order to provide independent and highly configurable railway bogies with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 15: Glinka does not teach that the bogie includes means for geo-positioning of the bogie. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the bogie includes means for geo-positioning of the bogie (Col. 18, line 55 – Col 19, line 20) (Fig. 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to a means for geo-positioning of the bogie, as taught by Soule, in order to provide independent and highly configurable railway bogies using positioning information with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 16: Glinka does not teach that the bogie includes a LIDAR system to locate the bogie relative to the vehicle and/or other bogies. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the bogie includes a LIDAR system to locate the bogie relative to the vehicle and/or other bogies (Fig. 36) (Col. 7, lines 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use LIDAR sensors to locate the bogie relative to other vehicles, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles using efficient spacing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 17: Glinka further teaches a vehicle (12) including two or more bogies (Fig. 5).
Referring to Claim 19: Glinka does not teach that each bogie has a separate drive mechanism to allow the bogie to be driven independently for movement of the vehicle. However, Soule teaches remote operation of a powered burden rail car, wherein each bogie has a separate drive mechanism (875) to allow the bogie to be driven independently for movement of the vehicle (Col. 9, lines 48-58) (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use separate drives for independent bogie movement, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles using efficient spacing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 20: Glinka further teaches a vehicle (12) in which the vehicle includes a freight container and/or a passenger cabin (26) (Fig. 5).
Referring to Claim 21: Glinka does not teach an anti-collision system. However, Soule teaches remote operation of a powered burden rail car, in which there is an anti-collision system (Col. 16, lines 58-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use a platooning system that prevents contact between vehicles above a threshold of acceptable force, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles, while preventing high force collisions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 22: Glinka does not teach that the anti-collision system includes a remote control regime and an onboard regime. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the anti-collision system includes a remote control regime and an onboard regime (Col. 17, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use a remote control regime and an onboard regime, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles using efficient spacing in a highly adaptable control system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 23: Glinka does not teach that the anti-collision system includes sensors for objects. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the anti-collision system includes sensors for objects (Fig. 36) (Col. 7, lines 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use sensors for objects, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles using efficient spacing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 24: Glinka does not teach that the sensors are associated with the bogie and/or other parts of the vehicle. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the sensors are associated with the bogie and/or other parts of the vehicle (Fig. 36) (Col. 7, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to use sensors associated with the bogie/vehicle, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles using efficient spacing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 25: Glinka does not teach that the bogie and other parts of a vehicle are separable for charging and/or maintenance. However, Soule teaches an electric rail vehicle, wherein the bogie and other parts of a vehicle are separable for charging and/or maintenance (Col. 7, lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Glinka to make the bogies separable for charging and/or maintenance, as taught by Soule, in order to enable automated movement within a platoon of vehicles using efficient spacing, while maintaining proper bogie operation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2014/0261061 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Chu discloses a bogie to allow transit as a vehicle, including:
a bogie support frame including a first portion (7, 18) and a second portion (1), the first portion being mountable to form part a vehicle in use (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]);
a suspension system (9) connecting the first portion and second portion (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]);
at least one wheelset (2) mounted on the second portion, each wheelset including two or more wheels mounted on a wheel axle (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]); and
an actuator (4) for providing torque to the two or more wheels (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]),
wherein the first portion of the bogie support frame (7, 18) is designated upon which the actuator (4) is mounted (via 5) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]).
Referring to Claim 9: Chu discloses a bogie wherein the first portion (7, 18) of the bogie support frame is above the suspension system (9) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]).
Referring to Claim 13: Chu discloses the bogie wherein the first portion (7, 18) of the support frame is provide as a bolster or transverse beam of the support frame particularly designated for the actuator (4) and operation thereof (Fig. 5) (Para. [0031]).
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) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Dausoa (US 2018/0001914 A1).
Referring to Claim 11: Chu does not teach an electrical sensor for monitoring height of the first portion of the bogie relative to a first surface. However, Dausoa teaches a method for controlling the height of a transport vehicle, including an electrical sensor (42) for monitoring height of the first portion of the bogie relative to a first surface (12) (Figs. 1 and 2) (Para. [0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Chu to use an electrical sensor to measure the bogie height, as taught by Dausoa, in order to monitor and control the height the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 12: Chu does not teach a controller including executable instructions to monitor and actuate the suspension system to automatically adjust the height of the first portion of the bogie to a predetermined height relative to the first surface. However, Dausoa teaches a method for controlling the height of a transport vehicle, including a controller (44) including executable instructions to monitor and actuate the suspension system (38) to automatically adjust the height of the first portion of the bogie to a predetermined height relative to the first surface (Figs. 1-3) (Para. [0134-0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Chu to use an electrical sensor to measure the bogie height, as taught by Dausoa, in order to monitor and control the height the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Donnelly et al. (US 12,097,893) teaches an alternate remotely operated powered bogie.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights