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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 17, 20,24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spieldiener (WO 2021/185856) and (Matchar, Smithsonian Magazine “Could Wind Turbines Be Coming to a Bridge Near You?, July 31, 2015).
As to claim 17, Spieldiener (WO 2021/185856) discloses a roller coast at an amusement facility. Figure one shows that the roller coaster has a rail system and vehicles guided along the rail system, a drive configured to propel the vehicles, and a power supply configured to supply the drive, wherein the rail system comprises elevated sections arranged vertically above a base surface on which the amusement facility is built, wherein a support structure forms a usable area in a region of the elevated sections between the base surface and the rail system, which are connected to at least one energy storage unit configured to store the electrical energy, wherein the at least one energy storage unit and/or a first control unit configured to control the amusement facility with electrical energy is connected to the drive and/or the first control unit. Spieldiener teach the use of electric drive means and regenerative braking which clearly require a storage unit for electricity.
Spieldiener does not teach “a plurality of photovoltaic units and/or wind energy units configured to generate electrical energy are arranged on or between support elements of the support structure in the region of the usable area”.
Matchar teaches the placement of wind turbines in the unused space under elevated transportation structures. This allows for the generation of low-cost clean electricity and save the expense of build a separate supporting structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the wind turbines of Matchar to the roller coaster of Spieldiener because it would reduce the operating cost and enhance the environment.
As to claim 20, Matchar shows to wind energy is generate by wind (i.e. wind wheels).
Regarding claim 24, the roller coast of Spieldiener forms a closed, circulating rail system with several vertically raised sections (figure 1).
As to claim 25. the roller coaster of Spieldiener partially encloses surface areas of the base area, and a plurality wind energy units for generating electrical energy would arranged on the surface areas when combined with the teachings of Matchar.
Claims 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spieldiener (WO 2021/185856) and Mao (CN 109185048)
As to claim 17, Spieldiener (WO 2021/185856) discloses a roller coast at an amusement facility. Figure one shows that the roller coaster has a rail system and vehicles guided along the rail system, a drive configured to propel the vehicles, and a power supply configured to supply the drive, wherein the rail system comprises elevated sections arranged vertically above a base surface on which the amusement facility is built, wherein a support structure forms a usable area in a region of the elevated sections between the base surface and the rail system, which are connected to at least one energy storage unit configured to store the electrical energy, wherein the at least one energy storage unit and/or a first control unit configured to control the amusement facility with electrical energy is connected to the drive and/or the first control unit. Spieldiener teach the use of electric drive means and regenerative braking which clearly require a storage unit for electricity.
Spieldiener does not teach “a plurality of photovoltaic units and/or wind energy units configured to generate electrical energy are arranged on or between support elements of the support structure in the region of the usable area”.
Mao (CN 109185048) discloses a system in which solar panels are added to an amusement park ride (Ferris wheel) to generate electric power to offset the operation of the ride, generate clean power and reduce operating costs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the solar sails of Mao to the roller coaster of Spieldiener because it would reduce the operating cost and enhance the environment.
As to claim 18, the solar sails of Mao are arranged at a distance from one another.
In consideration of claim 19, Mao discloses a plurality of solar sail constructed of multiple solar cell units where a space is provided between at least some of the solar sails that are adjacent.
Regarding claim 21, Mao teaches that the outer part of the Ferris wheel may be supported by cabling system.
As to claim 22, Mao discloses in figure 13 that the elongate spokes supporting elements with mounting means for attaching the solar sails and that the sail are moveable.
As to claim 23, Mao teaches the use of both wind and sun tracking unit to control the operation of the system.
Regarding claim 24, the roller coast of Spieldiener forms a closed, circulating rail system with several vertically raised sections (figure 1).
As to claim 25. the roller coaster of Spieldiener partially encloses surface areas of the base area, and a plurality solar sail for generating electrical energy would arrange on the surface areas when combined with the teachings of Mao.
As to claim 30, Spieldiener and Mao do not specify each group of solar panels being associated with at least one inverter that is connected upstream of the energy storage system. The Examiner takes official notice that connecting groups of solar panels to inverter is old and well known in the art and is required for upstream energy transfer or to a storage mean. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add inverters to the system of Mao and Spieldiener because it required for upstream transfer or storage of power and would allow for addition revenue and reduce operating cost.
Claims 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spieldiener (WO 2021/185856) and Mao (CN 109185048) as applied to claim 17 above further in view of Julen et al. (WO 2016/063633)
As to claims 26, Spieldiener and Mao do not specify the use of electromagnetic linear drive with a plurality of magnetic rotors and a plurality of stators in the vehicles.
In a roller coaster system, Julen et al. teach this method of powering a roller coaster. They further teach that linear motors are wear-resistant, can be energetically operated more economically and allow a more targeted control of the position and speed of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the electromagnetic linear drive of Julen et al. to the system of Spieldiener and Moa because it would operate more economically and allow a more targeted control of the position and speed of the vehicle.
As to claim 27, the drive system of Julen et al. is synchronized with the position of the cars and therefore can be considered to be a linear synchronous motor.
As to claim 28, Julen et al. further teach that “the stator as an active part of the linear motors used is significantly longer than the rotor as a passive part, which is attached to the vehicle”. In this system the stators are located in the rail system.
As to claim 29, Julen et al. further teach that “The energy exchange between the energy converter and the stator group can preferably take place in two directions: on the one hand, a group of stators can be supplied with energy via the at least one energy converter connected via the permanent connection. On the other hand, it can also deliver energy to the at least one energy converter connected via the permanent connection. In the former case, it works by motor, in the latter case as a generator.”
As to claim 30 Julen et al. further teach the use of regenerative invertor to transfer electrical power because it is required for upstream transfer or storage of power in the battery modules and would allow for additional revenue and reduce operating cost.
In regards to claim 31, Julen et al. teaches that groups of stators interact with the rotors in the cars and are connected to batter modules via power electrical circuitry.
As to claim 32 Julen et al, teach the use of DC-DC converters and to the battery modules. Spieldiener, Mao and Julen et al. do not teach the use of Maximum Power Point Tracking.
The Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to use Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) in solar and wind systems to continuously adjust the operating voltage and current of a power source. This ensures the system harvests the maximum possible electrical energy regardless of changing weather, temperature, or load conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) with the system of Julen et al., Spieldiener and Moa because it would ensure the system harvests the maximum possible electrical energy regardless of changing weather, temperature, or load conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-1915. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4 M-F.
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.
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.
/NATHAN J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights