DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 09/06/2024.
Claims 1-16 are presented for Examination. Claim 1 is independent.
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 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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "a second relative position of a first variation of the second reluctance relative to the first electromagnetic actuator module" in lines 12-13. This limitation is indefinite because the claim recites that the second electromagnetic actuator module interacts with the second rail, yet this limitation refers to the "second reluctance" (of the second rail) being relative to the "first electromagnetic actuator module." This creates confusion about whether the second relative position is intended to be relative to the first electromagnetic actuator module or the second electromagnetic actuator module. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Additionally, claim 1 recites "a first variation of the first reluctance" and "a first variation of the second reluctance" without clearly defining what constitutes a "variation" of reluctance. The term "variation" is not defined in the specification with sufficient particularity to determine its scope—whether it refers to a specific point of change, a rate of change, or some other characteristic of the reluctance profile.
Claims 2 and 3 are indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. Because claim 1 recites that the control module is arranged to receive data indicating "at least one of" several parameters, including "a first distance" and "a second distance." However, claims 2 and 3 positively recite "the first distance" and "the second distance" as if these parameters are necessarily present in all embodiments covered by claim 1. Because claim 1 only requires receiving data for "at least one of" the listed parameters, it is possible that an embodiment falling within the scope of claim 1 does not receive data for both distances. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 lack proper antecedent basis for "the first distance" and "the second distance" and fail to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 4 depends from claim 2, which as noted above lacks proper antecedent basis. Second, the claim recites four separate conditional limitations connected by "at least one of," but the formatting and punctuation make it unclear whether these are four separate conditions or whether some conditions are grouped together. The four conditions are:
(1) "if the first amplitude is increased, change the first current signal such that a first flux provided by the first electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position further upstream compared to prior to the change of the first current signal;"
(2) "if the first amplitude is decreased, change the first current signal such that a first flux provided by the first electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position less upstream compared to prior to the change of the first current signal;"
(3) "if the second amplitude is increased, change the second current signal such that a second flux provided by the second electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position further upstream compared to prior to the change of the second current signal;" and
(4) "if the second amplitude is decreased, change the second current signal such that a second flux provided by the second electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position less upstream compared to prior to the change of the second current signal."
The metes and bounds of this claim cannot be determined because it is unclear whether all four conditions must be performed together when any one condition is triggered, or whether only the specific condition matching the amplitude change need be performed.
Claim 11 is indefinite due to inconsistent terminology. Claim 1 recites "a first variation of the first reluctance" and "a first variation of the second reluctance," but claim 11 refers to "the first variation of the first reluctance" and "the second variation of the second reluctance." This change in terminology creates confusion about whether claim 11 is referring to the same variations recited in claim 1 or to different variations. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0009196 A1 to Allard ("Allard") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0164750 A1 to Kooger et al. ("Kooger").
Regarding independent Claim 1, Allard teaches that a control module for driving a vehicle relative to a track ([0057]; Fig.1), the track comprising:
a first rail having a first reluctance periodically varying over the length of the track;
a second rail having a second reluctance periodically varying over the length of the track ([0012], [0019],[0056] and Fig.3);
the vehicle comprising:
a first electromagnetic actuator module arranged to interact with the first rail; and
a second electromagnetic actuator module arranged to interact with the second rail;
the control module arranged to receive data ([0057]-[0058]) indicating at least one of:
a first distance between the first electromagnetic actuator module and the first rail ([0012]; Fig. 3);
a second distance between the second electromagnetic actuator module and the second rail ([0012]; Fig.3);
a first relative position of a first variation of the first reluctance relative to the first electromagnetic actuator module; and
a second relative position of a first variation of the second reluctance relative to the first electromagnetic actuator module;
the control module being further arranged to:
based on the received data, generate a first current signal having a first waveform and provide the generated first current signal to the first electromagnetic actuator module([0057] ; Fig.9);
based on the received data, generate a second current signal having a second waveform and provide the generated second current signal to the second electromagnetic actuator module ([0057] ; Fig.9).
Allard teaches varying magnetic intensity to maintain balance by selectively increasing one side's magnetic force while decreasing the other's (Allard;[0012]), but does not explicitly teach using the difference between first and second distances to determine current adjustments with the specificity claimed.
Kooger teaches a magnetic vehicle guidance system wherein exact spatial alignment is calculated and alternating electromagnetic currents are provided to adjust electromagnet position relative to the track based on measured distances (Kooger ¶[0043]-[0044], FIG. 4). Kooger further teaches using position data to dynamically adjust current amplitudes to maintain optimal lateral positioning (Kooger ¶[0072], FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Allard's control system with Kooger's precise distance-based current adjustment techniques to achieve more accurate lateral stability control and prevent mechanical collisions by maintaining optimal, symmetric air gaps between electromagnets and stator rails (Kooger’s [0054],[0073]).
Regarding Claim 2, Allard teaches that wherein the control module is further arranged to, if the received data indicate that the first distance is larger than the second distance by more than a first distance threshold(Allard teaches comparing gap distances and determining when one side is further from the stator than the other ([0058], FIG. 8).), perform at least one of:
increase a first amplitude of the first current([0012]); and
decrease a second amplitude of the second current ([0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, Allard teaches that wherein the control module is further arranged to, if the received data indicate that the first distance is smaller than the second distance by more than a second distance threshold (Allard teaches detecting when one side has a smaller gap than the other ([0058]).), perform at least one of:
increase a second amplitude of the second current ([0012]; and
decrease a first amplitude of the first current ([0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Allard teaches that wherein the first current signal and the second current signal are alternating current signals(Allard teaches alternating current signals for the electromagnets ([0056]); and the control module is further arranged to execute at least one of (Allard's control system executes these functions ([0057]):
if the first amplitude is increased, change the first current signal such that a first flux provided by the first electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position further upstream compared to prior to the change of the first current signal (Allard teaches that changing current amplitude affects the magnetic flux and its position relative to the stator cogs ([0056]-[0057], Fig. 7));
if the first amplitude is decreased, change the first current signal such that a first flux provided by the first electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position less upstream compared to prior to the change of the first current signal (Allard teaches that decreasing current amplitude changes the flux position accordingly ([0056]-[0057]));
if the second amplitude is increased, change the second current signal such that a second flux provided by the second electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position further upstream compared to prior to the change of the second current signal; and
if the second amplitude is decreased, change the second current signal such that a second flux provided by the second electromagnetic actuator module increases at a position less upstream compared to prior to the change of the second current signal Allard teaches these symmetrical operations for the second side ([0012], [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding Claim 5, Allard teaches that wherein:
the first current signal has a first frequency and a first phase and, if the first current signal is changed, the frequency is kept substantially constant and the first phase is changed; and
the second current signal has a second frequency and a second phase and, if the second current signal is changed, the frequency is kept substantially constant and the second phase is changed (Allard teaches maintaining frequency while adjusting phase to control flux position ([0057], Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 6, Allard teaches that wherein the control module is further arranged to;
receive data on at least one of a first current through and a first voltage over at least part of the first electromagnetic actuator module over time and determine the first distance based on the first current and the first voltage over time; and
receive data on at least one of a second current through and a second voltage over at least part of the second electromagnetic actuator module over time and determine the second distance based on the second current and the second voltage over time (Allard teaches using current and voltage measurements to determine position and gap;Fig.8: [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding Claim 7, Allard teaches that wherein the control module is further arranged to:
receive data on at least one of a first current through and a first voltage over at least part of the first electromagnetic actuator module over time and determine the first relative position based on the first current and the first voltage over time; and
receive data on at least one of a second current through and a second voltage over at least part of the second electromagnetic actuator module over time and determine the second relative position based on the second current and the second voltage over time Allard teaches determining relative position using current and voltage measurements ([0058], Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Allard teaches that, wherein the control module is further arranged to determine at least one of an amplitude, a frequency and a phase of at least one of the first current, the first voltage, the second current and the second voltage([0057], Fig.9).
Regarding Claim 9, Allard teaches that wherein the control module is further arranged to:
determine the first relative position based on a phase of at least one of the first current and the first voltage; and
determine the second relative position based on a phase of at least one of the second current and the second voltage ([0057]-[0058], Figs. 8-9)).
Regarding Claim 10, Allard teaches that wherein:
the control module is arranged to receive data on the first distance from a first distance sensor; and
the control module is arranged to receive data on the second distance from a second distance sensor (Allard teaches receiving distance data from Hall effect sensors ([0058], Fig.8)
Regarding Claim 11, Allard teaches that wherein
the first variation of the first reluctance is a change from a first reluctance value to a second reluctance value, wherein the first reluctance value is higher or lower than the second reluctance value (Allard teaches the reluctance variation as changes between high and low reluctance values at the cogs/steps ([0019],[0056], Fig.3); and
the second variation of the second reluctance is a change from a third reluctance value to a fourth reluctance value, wherein the third reluctance value is higher or lower than the fourth reluctance value (Allard teaches the same for the second rail ([0019], Fig.3).
Regarding Claim 12, Allard teaches that wherein the current signal comprises three alternating currents having a phase difference of 120° relative to one another (Allard teaches three-phase alternating currents with 120° phase difference for driving linear motors ([0056], Fig.7)
Regarding Claim 13, Allard teaches that a vehicle arranged to be propelled in a tubular system along a propulsion track; (a vehicle arranged to be propelled along a track [0012], Fig. 1)
the propulsion track comprising: (the propulsion track structure ([0019], Fig. 3).
a first rail having a first reluctance periodically varying over the length of the propulsion track;(a first rail with periodically varying reluctance [0019], Fig.3).
a second rail having a second reluctance periodically varying over the length of the propulsion track; ([0012], Fig. 3)
the vehicle comprising: ([0012]).
a first electromagnetic actuator module arranged to interact with the first rail; and ([0012], FIG. 3)
a second electromagnetic actuator module arranged to interact with the second rail; and([0012], Fig. 3)
the control module according to claim 1.(Allard teaches the control module as rejected in claim 1 above.).
Regarding Claim 14, Allard teaches that wherein the first electromagnetic actuator module is rigidly connected to the second electromagnetic actuator module ([0012]; Fig.3).
Regarding Claim 15, Allard teaches that wherein the first electromagnetic actuator module is provided at a first lateral side of the vehicle and the second electromagnetic actuator module is provided at a second lateral side of the vehicle, the first lateral side being substantially opposite to the second lateral side([0012]; Fig.3).
.
Regarding Claim 16, Allard teaches that a transport system a transport system ([0012], FIG. 1) comprising:
a tubular transport environment comprising a propulsion track comprising:
a first rail having a first reluctance periodically varying over the length of the propulsion track;
a second rail having a second reluctance periodically varying over the length of the propulsion track (Allard teaches both rails with periodically varying reluctance ([0019], Fig.3).; and
the vehicle according to claim 13 (as rejected in claim 13 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights