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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “r” in Figures 4 and 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Lines 1-2 recite “for a gangway between two car bodies moving together” which should read “between two car bodies that move together” or “between two car bodies capable of moving together” to ensure that the bellows are recited positively both when the cars and moving and when they are not in motion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2: Lines 2-3 should read “the longitudinal side of the at least one reinforcing section that is made up of the strip a longitudinal side of a straight section of the respective fold or corrugation.” for the purpose of consistency and grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3: Line 1 should read “wherein the strip
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claims 14 and 15 both recite “the strip of material” which renders the claim indefinite because Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13 which recites a strip of material OR a thickening of the bendable sheet material. Since a strip of material is recited in the alternative, it is not necessarily required by the claim. It is unclear what the meets and bounds of claims 14 and 15 would be in the instance that only a thickening of the bendable sheet material is present and there is not a strip of material. Additionally, claim 15 recites the narrow side of the strip of material which should read “a narrow side” as the narrow side of the strip of material has not been previously introduced in the claims and lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carimentrand (US 5060578 A).
In regards to claim 1: Carimentrand teaches a bellows as gangway protection for a gangway between two car bodies moving together connected to one another in a multi-section vehicle or for a jetway (Abstract, shown generally in Figure 1), the bellows comprising:
a roof (12); and
two side parts arranged facing one another (10 and 10’), at least the two side parts each comprising a multiplicity of folds or corrugations (shown in Figures 3-5b) formed of a bendable sheet material (3);
wherein;
each of the multiplicity of folds or corrugations has a narrow side (along roof 12) and a longitudinal side (along side parts 10 and 10’);
each of two of the folds or corrugations abutting one another are joined together on their longitudinal sides (See Figure 1 where all of the folds or corrugations are joined on both their narrow and longitudinal sides)
at least one of the folds or corrugations has at least one reinforcing section (exterior peak with thickness 2x that of the rest of the membrane, Paragraph 26 under Description: “In contrast, the bottom peaks of the corrugations, which are flush with the exterior surface (F), have a thickness equal to approximately twice the thickness of (e), by addition of a rubber-based profile which may have a modulus higher than the rest of the coating.”) and at least two normal sections (interior peaks and sides with thickness e, See Figure 4), the at least one reinforcing section having a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the at least two normal sections (See quote above, the reinforcing sections have a thickness 2x the thickness of the other sections);
the at least one reinforcing section having a narrow side (along roof 12, see Figure 1) and a longitudinal side (along side parts 10 and 10’, see Figure 1), the longitudinal side of the at least one reinforcing section primarily extends in a direction of the longitudinal side of the respective fold or corrugation (refer to Figure 1); and
an extension of the narrow side of the at least one reinforcing section is a maximum of 75% of an extension of the narrow side of the respective fold or corrugation (Refer to Figures 3-5b where the reinforced section of the outer corrugation is approximately half of one entire corrugation containing an inner and outer peak, examiner notes that the recitation “a maximum” only requires that the extension not exceed 75% so anything less than 75% is covered by the claim).
In regards to claim 2: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the at least one reinforcing section is in the form of a strip (23), the longitudinal side of the at least reinforcing section that is made up of the strip that is at least half as long as the longitudinal side of a straight section (inner peak of corrugations) of the respective fold or corrugation (See Figure 1, the longitudinal sides of the inner and outer peaks along the corrugations equally extend along the entire longitudinal side parts 10 and 10’).
In regards to claim 3: The bellows according to claim 2 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the strip is as long as the longitudinal side of the straight section of the respective fold or corrugation (See Figures 1 and 6a where the outer peaks of the folds with strip 23 run the entire longitudinal length of the bellows).
In regards to claim 4: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the thickness of the at least one reinforcing section is 2x the thickness of the corresponding at least two normal sections (See quote of Paragraph 26 under the description above in regards to claim 1).
In regards to claim 5: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the extension of the narrow side of the at least one reinforcing section is a maximum of 60%, 50%, or 25% of the extension of the narrow side of the respective fold or corrugation (See Figure 5A where the reinforced section 23 is clearly less than 60% percent of an entire fold containing an inner and outer peak as one entire fold contains two of the longer side walls plus an inner and outer peak that is shorter, only the outer peak is reinforced therefore the reinforced section must be less than even 50% of the narrow side of the fold).
In regards to claim 7: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the bellows is a corrugated bellows, with each corrugation running in a cross-section plane parallel to the narrow side in an arc (See Figures 1 and 3-5b).
In regards to claim 8: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the bellows is a folding bellows, the folds being arranged in a zigzag pattern (See figures 3-5b) in a cross-section plane that is parallel to the narrow side (See Figure 1).
In regards to claim 13: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein the at least one reinforcing section is made up of a thickening of the bendable sheet material of the respective fold or corrugation (Paragraph 45 under description: “The thickness of the corrugations is modified along the entire length of the deepest corrugation 9 and the shallowest corrugation 19 near the beads 20 and 21, respectively, by adding textile fibers as reinforcement to strengthen the beads. The extra thickness 23 which stiffens the end peaks of each corrugation is obtained during fabrication.”). Examiner notes that the limitation of the strip of material that is glued, sewn, or welded is not required by the claim as the second condition of the OR statement regarding the thickening of the material is satisfied as described above.
In regards to claim 14: The bellows according to claim 13 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein a strip of material (23) of the reinforcing section follows a curve of the bendable sheet material of the respective fold or corrugation (See Figure 6B).
In regards to claim 17: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein at least half of the multiplicity of folds or corrugations has at least one reinforcing section (See Figures 3-5B where all of the folds or corrugations contain a reinforcing section on the outer peak).
In regards to claim 18: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches wherein each of the folds or corrugations has at least one reinforcing section (See Figures 3-5B where all of the folds or corrugations contain a reinforcing section on the outer peak).
In regards to claim 19: A bellows according to claim 1 is taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand further teaches a gangway system (Shown generally in Figures 1 and 2) and a bridge (7 and 8 in Figures 1 and 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carimentrand.
In regards to claim 6: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand is silent as to the exact percentage of the extension of the narrow side of the at least one reinforcing section. However, in Figure 5A the reinforcing section appears to be at least 5% of the of the extension of one complete fold including the inner and outer peaks as well as the side walls. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05:
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the case of the instant application, while the ranges of at least 5% and at least 10% are not specifically mentioned in Carimentrand, they are considered optimum operating ranges, and are, therefore, rendered obvious in view of the prior art. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to adjust the reinforced section in order to provide stiffness to the bellows and reinforce the peaks of the folds (Paragraph 35 of the description of Carimentrand) while still allowing the non-reinforced portions the flexibility to move in and out (as shown in Figures 5A and 5B of Carimentrand) thereby optimizing the stiffness and flexibility of the bellows and optimizing durability.
Claims 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carimentrand in view of Heinrich (CN105599553A, previously provided by applicant).
In regards to claim 9: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand fails to teach wherein at least one of the folds or corrugations has at least two reinforcing sections running along the narrow side of the respective fold or corrugation. However, Heinrich teaches a bellows (3) with folds or corrugations (10) with at least two reinforcing sections (16 and 18) running along the narrow side of the respective fold or corrugation (See Figure 3) to provide further structure to the curvature of the bellows and optimize water flowing off of the bellows (Paragraph 2 under detailed ways). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Carimentrand to have two reinforcing sections as in Heinrich on the bellows of Carimentrand so as to provide further structure and optimized curvature to control water flow thereby creating a more durable bellows.
In regards to claim 10: The bellows according to claim 9 are taught by Carimentrand in view of Heinrich. The combination further teaches wherein the at least one of the folds or corrugations has exactly two reinforcing sections (see Figure 3 of Heinrich) running along the narrow side of the respective fold or corrugation.
In regards to claim 11: The bellows according to claim 10 are taught by Carimentrand in view of Heinrich. The combination further teaches wherein the two reinforcing sections are distributed in mirrored symmetry (See Figure 3 of Heinrich) along the narrow side of the respective fold or corrugation.
In regards to claim 12: The bellows according to claim 10 is taught by Carimentrand in view of Heinrich. The combination further teaches wherein the bellows is a corrugated bellows with a multiplicity of corrugations (See Figures 3-5b of Carimentrand);
wherein the two reinforcing sections cover two imaginary lines running parallel to the longitudinal sides of the respective corrugation and wherein in a section plane running parallel to the narrow side of the respective corrugation the first of the two imaginary lines is at an angle of + 45̊ related to a mirrored symmetry plane of the respective corrugation and the second of the two imaginary lines is arranged at an angle of -45̊ related to the mirrored symmetry plane (See annotated Figure 3 of Heinrich);
wherein a peak of the angles is given by an intersection between the mirrored symmetry plane and a vertical straight line at the mirrored symmetry plane, so that a circle around the peak intersects the vertical straight line and the mirrored symmetry plane within the bendable sheet material of the respective corrugation (See annotated Figure 3 of Heinrich); and
wherein the circle is determined in a non-extended and uncompressed state of the respective corrugation (See Figure 3 of Heinrich).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 16: The bellows according to claim 1 are taught by Carimentrand. Carimentrand fails to teach wherein the at least one reinforcing section is arranged on an inner side of the bellows. However, Heinrich teaches a bellows (3) with folds or corrugations (10) with at least two reinforcing sections (16 and 18) arranged on an inner side of the bellows (See Figure 3) to provide further structure to the curvature of the bellows and optimize water flowing off of the bellows (Paragraph 2 under detailed ways). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Carimentrand to have a reinforcing section arranged on the inside of the bellows as in Heinrich so as to provide further structure and optimized curvature to control water flow thereby creating a more durable bellows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 15 recites wherein the strip of material is sewn together with the bendable sheet material of the respective fold or corrugation with two seams, the seams running in a direction parallel to the narrow side of the strip of material and having a distance of at least 5mm, 7mm, or 10mm between the seams. The prior art failed to teach a strip of material on a bellows sewn with two seams at least 5mm or more apart connecting the strip to the bellows. Furthermore, there would be no motivation nor is there any suggestion to modify the reinforced section of Carimentrand in this way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schroyer (US 1063607 A), Donaldson (US 0845451 A), and Schroyer (US 0710924 A) teach bellows with reinforced folds. Fowler (US 2023/0191860 A1) teaches a bellows with overlapping panels for reinforcement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611