DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed September 20, 2024 have been considered.
________________________________________
Claim Interpretation
The term "transportation pathway" in claim 15 is construed in light of paragraph [0037] of the substitute specification as a continuous track structurally capable of withstanding vehicle transport of heavy construction parts and thereafter supporting the transportation superstructure. Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] describe single-track and parallel-track arrangements. Because claim 15 is an apparatus claim, this construction requires the recited girder pathway to possess that structural capability; it does not add separate erection-method steps.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because the phrase "a thickness of each shim been adapted" is grammatically incomplete.
Suggested Correction: Replace "a thickness of each shim been adapted" with "a thickness of each shim is adapted".
Claim 24 is objected to because "inferior to 10mm" requires correction for idiom and unit spacing.
Suggested Correction: Replace "inferior to 10mm" with "less than 10 mm".
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 - primary - US 2019/0300301 A1
Reference 2 - US 2018/0149291 A1
Reference 3 - US 6,412,132 B1
Reference 4 - US 2021/0291880 A1
Reference 5 - US 2018/0208217 A1
________________________________________
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) A portion of a transportation structure comprising: (L2) a substructure including a plurality of piers, (L3) a first plurality of girders positioned on at least some of the piers and forming a first transportation pathway running from a first extremity of the substructure to a second extremity, (L4) a first assembly of tube segments capable of being placed under low air pressure, pods capable of traveling substantially free of air friction through the first assembly of tube segments, (L5) the first assembly of tube segments positioned on the first transportation pathway, and each tube segment comprising: (L6) a main tube with legs distributed along a length of the main tube and suitable for the main tube to rest on the substructure on the legs, and (L7) shims positioned in-between the substructure and at least part of the legs, (L8) a thickness of each shim been adapted so that the deflection of the substructure between the piers is offset.
Analysis
(L1), (L2), and (L4): Reference 1 discloses transportation system 10, tube sections 14 forming low-pressure transportation tubes 18 and 20, capsules 12, and pillars 22 spaced along the transportation path; see Figs. 1, 3A, and 11A-11D and paragraphs [0024]-[0029], [0115]-[0117], and [0156]-[0161]. (L3) and (L5): Reference 1 discloses support structures 70 extending between and secured to successive pillars 22, with tube sections 14 assembled on the support structures. The repeated between-pillar support structures collectively provide longitudinal girders extending with the tube route. Reference 3 further discloses substantially parallel beams 28 positioned over the bridge span and construction trolleys that move decking and other form materials along the length of the beams; see Figs. 1-3 and 5-9 and the corresponding description. Making Reference 1's repeated support structures 70 capable of carrying such a construction trolley before tube installation provides the claimed continuous heavy-construction transportation pathway while preserving the later tube-support function. (L6): Reference 2 discloses pipe 20 seated on pipe shoes 22, each pipe shoe forming a foot or frame, above slide bearing plate 10 and beam 24; see Figs. 1, 7, and 10-16 and paragraphs [0032]-[0064]. Applying multiple pipe shoes 22 at distributed positions along each Reference 1 tube section provides load-bearing legs of that section and preserves axial sliding for thermal movement. (L7) and (L8): Reference 3 discloses deflection shim 42 extending with beam 28, gradually varying from minimum height at the span ends to maximum height near midspan. Its profile is calculated from the span, load, and related variables so that loading-induced beam deflection is compensated and the supported surface becomes planar; see Figs. 2-3 and the corresponding first-embodiment description. Applying that disclosed position-dependent compensation as discrete shims below the fixed slide bearing plates 10 of Reference 2 at the tube-shoe locations places each shim between a tube leg and the girder substructure. Selecting each shim thickness from the calculated loaded-span deflection at that location offsets the downward deflection of the support structure between pillars without preventing the pipe shoe's axial movement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Reference 1's repeated between-pillar support structures as a continuous construction-capable girder route using the beam-and-trolley teaching of Reference 3, support each tube section on distributed pipe shoes as taught by Reference 2, and set the fixed bearing elevations using Reference 3's deflection-compensating shim profile. Reference 1 expressly requires alignment of long tube sections across spaced pillars and contemplates assembly of those sections on support structures 70; Reference 2's shoes distribute pipe load while permitting axial thermal movement; and Reference 3's trolley-capable beams and calculated shim profile permit heavy construction materials to be moved along the support route while compensating predictable loaded-span sag. Placing the calculated shims below the fixed bearing plates preserves the separate sliding interface. The combined structural functions are compatible and predictably produce an aligned low-pressure tube on a construction-capable girder pathway.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) wherein the main tube is made of steel.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 1 expressly discloses tube sections 14 formed from reinforced uniform-thickness steel, selected to withstand pressure differential, bending and buckling between pillars, capsule loading, and seismic loading; see paragraph [0147].
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 1's expressly disclosed steel construction for the tube sections in the claim-15 combination because Reference 1 identifies steel as suitable for the pressure and span loads encountered by the tube. The shoe and shim modifications concern the support interfaces and do not require a different tube material, so the selection predictably retains the disclosed strength and pressure functions.
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) wherein the legs are regularly distributed along the length of the main tube.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 2 shows pipe 20 carried by multiple pipe support stands and pipe shoes 22 along the pipeline, including the distributed arrangement of Fig. 7. In applying those shoes to the substantially uniform tube sections and repeated support spans of Reference 1, positioning the shoes at regular intervals distributes the tube load consistently and supplies the added limitation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place the Reference 2 pipe shoes at regular intervals along each Reference 1 tube section because regularly spaced supports distribute the substantially repeated tube load and provide repeatable bearing and shim locations. That arrangement is technically compatible with the repeated girder spans and predictably reduces localized loading while preserving axial sliding.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) wherein the legs include brackets.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 2 discloses pipe support stand 34 with support beam 26A and ground-engaging legs 26B, and further discloses pipe shoe 22 as a foot or frame seating pipe 20; see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0034] and [0063]. Reference 3 expressly discloses support assembly 120 in which substantially triangular bracket 128 is attached or bolted to hanger flange 124, bracket 128 having hole 130 that receives the hook of J-hanger 132; see Fig. 5A and paragraph [0015]. Incorporating Reference 3's bracket 128 at the structural attachment of each Reference 2 leg or pipe-shoe foot/frame provides legs that include brackets while retaining the inherited tube-support and shim functions.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Reference 3's bracket 128 into the leg or foot/frame connection of Reference 2 used in the claim-15 combination because Reference 3 uses the bracket as a secure load-bearing attachment between support components. The bracket connection is mechanically compatible with the leg-supported pipe shoe and provides a familiar bolted attachment that facilitates assembly and alignment without altering the sliding bearing interface. Applying that known structural attachment predictably provides a bracket-equipped leg while preserving the combined tube-support and deflection-compensation functions.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3, and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) wherein the legs are part of transverse reinforcements connected to the main tube.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 4 discloses annular ribs extending around and connected to the tube segment and longitudinal stringers that together form the load-bearing skeleton of the tube segment; see Figs. 1, 2, and 9C and paragraphs [0019], [0025], and [0047]. Reference 2 discloses support stand 34 having a transverse support beam 26A and ground-engaging legs 26B beneath pipe 20; see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063]. Integrating the Reference 2 support beam and legs with the annular-rib location of Reference 4 transfers the tube load through the transverse reinforcement and provides legs that are part of a transverse reinforcement connected to the main tube.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the transverse support beam and legs of Reference 2 with the annular-rib regions of Reference 4 when applying the claim-15 support arrangement because Reference 4 identifies those ribs as part of the tube's load-bearing skeleton and Reference 2 transfers tube load through a transverse beam to legs. Locating and structurally joining the support at a reinforced rib avoids concentrating support load in an unstiffened tube wall, is mechanically compatible with the distributed shoe-and-shim arrangement, and predictably produces a reinforced tube support in which the legs are part of the transverse reinforcement.
________________________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3, and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 19 (L2) wherein each transverse reinforcement extends substantially in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the main tube.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claims 15 and 19 and their complete combination of References 1, 2, 3, and 4. (L2): Reference 4 discloses that the folded edges of the inner shell parts align to form annular ribs around the internal circumference of the tube segment at positions spaced along the tube length, while longitudinal stringers run along the tube axis; see Figs. 2 and 9C and paragraphs [0019], [0025], and [0047]. Each annular rib therefore lies substantially in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tube.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 4's circumferential annular-rib orientation in the claim-19 combination because that orientation braces the tube against global buckling and provides a reinforced transverse load-transfer location for the support legs. The orientation is intrinsic to the annular-rib construction and predictably preserves the disclosed stiffness while transferring tube loads to the support structure.
________________________________________
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3, and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 19 (L2) wherein the transverse reinforcements include two legs.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claims 15 and 19 and their complete combination of References 1, 2, 3, and 4. (L2): Reference 2 discloses support stand 34 having transverse support beam 26A carried by a pair of ground-engaging legs 26B; see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063]. In the claim-19 combination, the support beam is integrated with a Reference 4 annular-rib region so that the resulting transverse reinforcement includes the two disclosed legs.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's pair of legs beneath the transverse support beam integrated at each Reference 4 annular-rib region because the spaced pair provides stable two-point support and resists overturning of the supported tube. The paired-leg stand is compatible with the distributed shoe and shim interfaces and predictably provides a stable transverse reinforcement having two legs.
________________________________________
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3, and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 19 (L2) further comprising longitudinal stiffeners positioned between the transverse reinforcements.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claims 15 and 19 and their complete combination of References 1, 2, 3, and 4. (L2): Reference 4 discloses longitudinal stringers formed by the folded portions of the elongated outer shell parts, with rectangular cells defined between the spaced annular ribs and the longitudinal stringers; see Figs. 2 and 9C and paragraphs [0019], [0025], [0035], and [0047]. The stringers are longitudinal stiffeners positioned between successive annular transverse reinforcements.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 4's longitudinal stringers between successive annular ribs in the claim-19 combination because Reference 4 uses the ribs and stringers together as the tube-segment skeleton to resist local and global buckling. The stringers are structurally compatible with the reinforced support locations and predictably increase longitudinal and panel stiffness without interfering with the legs, shoes, or shims.
________________________________________
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3, and 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) wherein the thickness of each shim is adapted so that the deflection of the main tube between the piers is inferior to 10 mm.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 5 discloses a steel vacuum tube supported between towers and quantifies tube deflection under vehicle load as approximately 0.095 inch, while also describing reduction to approximately 0.045 inch; both values are less than 10 mm. Reference 5 further teaches reducing tube deflection to improve passenger comfort; see the Background, Figs. 1-4, and the corresponding description of tubes 102 and 104 between support towers 202. Applying that express less-than-10-mm performance target when selecting the Reference 3 deflection-compensating shim profile results in individual shim thicknesses adapted to keep the main-tube deflection between piers below 10 mm.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the Reference 3 shim profile used in the claim-15 combination to achieve the sub-10-mm tube-deflection range expressly identified by Reference 5 because Reference 5 explains that limiting vertical tube deflection improves ride comfort. Reference 3 already calculates compensation from span and load conditions; using Reference 5's disclosed performance range as the design criterion is technically compatible with that calculation and predictably yields shim thicknesses that maintain tube alignment within the stated limit.
________________________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) wherein the thickness of each shim is a function of a distance to the pier.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 3 discloses deflection shim 42 having minimum height at the ends of beam 28 and increasing toward the more-deflected midspan region. In the claim-15 combination, the thickness selected for each discrete shim follows that loaded-span profile at the associated shoe position. Because the profile changes with position measured from the supporting pillar, each selected thickness is a function of distance to the pillar.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select each tube-shoe shim thickness according to its distance along the pier-supported span when applying Reference 3's compensation because downward deflection varies with span position. Matching the correction to the local calculated sag predictably offsets deflection and maintains tube alignment.
________________________________________
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 15 (L2) further comprising a second assembly of tube segments capable of being placed under low air pressure, the pods capable of traveling substantially free of air friction through the second assembly.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claim 15 and its complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 1 discloses side-by-side transportation tubes 18 and 20 formed from tube sections 14, both used in the low-pressure capsule transportation system; see Figs. 1 and 3A and paragraphs [0024]-[0029], [0115]-[0117], and [0147]. Retaining the second tube when supporting the first through the shoe-and-shim arrangement supplies the added second low-pressure tube assembly.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's second low-pressure tube assembly when applying the support modifications to the first assembly because Reference 1 uses the paired tubes for opposite-direction service and efficient shared infrastructure. The support-height modification does not require removing the second tube, and retaining it predictably preserves two-direction low-pressure pod travel.
________________________________________
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3, and 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The portion of transportation structure as recited in claim 26 (L2) wherein the second assembly of tube segments is positioned on the first assembly of tube segments.
Analysis
(L1) incorporates claims 15 and 26 and their complete combination of References 1, 2, and 3. (L2): Reference 5 discloses first and second low-pressure transportation tubes 102 and 104 between support towers 202 and expressly teaches positioning tube 104 directly above, or stacked over, tube 102; see Fig. 6 and the corresponding description, and claims 8-10. Applying that stacked relationship to Reference 1's paired low-pressure tubes places the second tube assembly on the first tube assembly.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange Reference 1's paired low-pressure tube assemblies in the stacked relationship taught by Reference 5 because Reference 5 explains that the vertical arrangement increases the moment of inertia and reduces stresses and deflection from horizontal loading such as wind. The stacked arrangement is compatible with the shared pier route and the inherited support-height compensation and predictably provides a compact, structurally efficient two-direction transportation system.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 19, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claims 15 and 19.
Regarding claim 21, US 2021/0291880 A1 discloses circumferential annular ribs and longitudinal stringers forming rectangular cells in a double-walled evacuated tube, but the cells are spaces between the ribs and stringers rather than substantially rectangular transverse reinforcements hollowed in their centers for passage of the main tube. US 2018/0149291 A1 discloses a transverse pipe-support beam and legs but does not disclose the claimed substantially rectangular hollow transverse reinforcement surrounding the main tube. The reviewed references do not teach or suggest that complete relationship.
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 26, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claims 15 and 26.
Regarding claim 28, US 2019/0300301 A1 and US 2018/0208217 A1 disclose paired low-pressure tubes supported along a common route, including side-by-side arrangements, but do not disclose the second tube assembly positioned on a separate second transportation pathway formed by a second plurality of girders positioned on at least some of the same piers and extending alongside the first girder pathway as claimed. The reviewed references do not teach or suggest that complete separate-girder-pathway relationship.
________________________________________
Art Considered but Not Applied
US 2008/0301889 A1 was compared for a continuous route used by heavy bridge-construction equipment, but it was not applied because References 1 and 3 provide the tube-support and construction-capable beam teachings used in the stated combination. US 2019/0389490 A1 was compared for vertically coupled pneumatic tubes, but Reference 5 supplies the stacked low-pressure-tube teaching used for claim 27 in a more directly applicable support-tower arrangement. US 2020/0362995 A1 was compared for multiple evacuated tubes on piers but does not disclose claim 28's separate adjacent transportation pathway formed by a second plurality of girders.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1-14 are canceled. Claims 15-20, 22-27 are rejected. Claims 21 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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