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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2017855.4, filed on 11/12/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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 1-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the portions” in line 6. However, it is unclear which “portions” the applicant is referring to. Claim 1 recites “a pair of wall portions”, “a floor portion” and “a roof portion”. For examination purposes “the portions” has been construed as “the pair of wall portions”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the portions” in line 11. However, it is unclear which “portions” the applicant is referring to. Claim 1 recites “a pair of wall portions”, “a floor portion” and “a roof portion”. For examination purposes “the portions” has been construed as “the pair of wall portions”.
Dependent claims 2-24 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the portions” in line 2. However, it is unclear which “portions” the applicant is referring to. Claim 1 recites “a pair of wall portions”, “a floor portion” and “a roof portion”. For examination purposes “the portions” has been construed as “the pair of wall portions”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “each portion” in line 2. However, it is unclear which “portion” the applicant is referring to. Claim 1 recites “a pair of wall portions”, “a floor portion” and “a roof portion”. For examination purposes “each portion” has been construed as “each pair of wall portions”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the portions” in line 2. However, it is unclear which “portions” the applicant is referring to. Claim 1 recites “a pair of wall portions”, “a floor portion” and “a roof portion”. For examination purposes “the portions” has been construed as “the pair of wall portions”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JPH0624930B2, provided with translation), in view of Le (WO 2014006389 A1, provided).
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches (Fig. 1-7): A carriage connector for connecting railway carriages (vehicle bodies 1) of a train together (Fig. 1) comprising: a pair of wall portions (side wall panels 9 and doors 10)(Fig. 2); a floor portion (crossing planks 18, 19; Fig. 7); and a roof portion (upper section of hood 3; Fig. 7), wherein the pair of wall portions (wall portions 9, 10) form a passage (passageway 2; Fig. 2) with a first end having an opening (Fig. 1-2) and forming a mountable interface (panel 9 and metal frame 4 adheres to main part 1 of a vehicle; Fig. 5), for mounting the carriage connector to a railway carriage (1)(Fig. 4-5), and an opposing end forming a connectable interface (metal frame 5)(Fig. 5); wherein the wall portions (9, 10) are configured to allow their longitudinal length to be varied (Fig. 1-2 and 4); wherein the pair of wall portions (9, 10) are arranged to be retracted to the mountable interface (4, 9) such that the wall portions obstruct the opening (retracted through actuator 7 to fixed frame 4 for closing the opening; Fig. 4-5), defining a closed position of the carriage connector (Fig. 4), and are arranged to be extended from the mountable interface (4, 9) to form the passage (2), defining an open position of the carriage connector (Fig. 5); wherein the carriage connector is movable between the open and closed positions (Fig. 4-5).
Ando teaches a closed position for the carriage connector (Fig. 4), but does not explicitly teach that in the closed position, the carriage connector presents a pointed profile for allowing relatively low aerodynamic drag to be induced on the carriage connector when the carriage connector is at an end of the train.
However, Le teaches an alternate carriage connector, wherein (Fig. 11-13): in a closed position (with two inner doors 9 closed, Fig. 11-12), the carriage connector presents a pointed profile (Fig. 11) for allowing relatively low aerodynamic drag to be induced on the carriage connector when the carriage connector is at an end of the train (external shape of the end of the carriage made in an aerodynamic shape; Description, page 3, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Ando to configure the wall portions 10 at the vehicle’s end in an aerodynamic pointed shape for obstructing the opening between passages, as disclosed by Le, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would significantly reduce aerodynamic drag, allowing for higher speeds with less energy, and reduced noise.
Regarding claim 2, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. ANDO further teaches (Fig. 1-7): the roof portion (upper section of hood 3; Fig. 7) is configured to be, in the closed position, retracted within the railway carriage (Fig. 4), and in the open position, extended from within the railway carriage to form the passage (2)(Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. ANDO further teaches (Fig. 1-7): the floor (18, 19) and roof (upper section of hood 3; Fig. 7) portions are configured to allow their longitudinal length to be varied in accordance with the longitudinal length of the wall portions (9,10) such that the longitudinal length of the passage (2) can be varied (Fig. 4-5 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. ANDO further teaches (Fig. 1-7): each wall portion (9, 10) comprises at least a first section (10d) slidably mounted to a second section (9) such that one section may slide relative to the other to allow the longitudinal length of the wall portion to be varied (slidable via point rollers 13; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 4, as stated above. ANDO further teaches (Fig. 1-7): the sections (9, 10d) are configured such that the sliding movement is constrained in a longitudinal direction of the wall portions (9, 10)(movement constrained by connecting hood 3, actuator 7 and sealing material 8; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. ANDO further teaches (Fig. 1-7): movement of the carriage connector between the open (Fig. 5) and closed positions (Fig. 4) is controlled by an actuation means (actuator 7).
Regarding claim 8, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 6, as stated above. ANDO further teaches (Fig. 5): each portion (9, 10) has a mountable end (end of panel 9 connected to carriage 1), which forms part of the mountable interface (4, 9)(Fig. 5), and a distal end (end connected to frame 5 through spring hinge 11), which forms part of the connectable interface (5)(Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 8, as stated above. Ando further teaches (Fig. 4-5): the wall portions (9, 10) can pivot from a first position (open position), generally parallel to an axial direction of a railway carriage (1)(Fig. 5), to a second position (closed position), generally perpendicular to an axial direction of a railway carriage (1)(Fig. 4), such that distal ends of the wall portions (9, 10), in the first position (open position), are generally flush closing the opening at the mountable interface (5)(Fig. 5), and in the second position (closed position), form part of the passage (2)(Fig. 4); and wherein the wall portions (9, 10) are moveable between the first and second positions (Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 9, as stated above. Ando further teaches (Fig. 4-5 and 7): the floor (18, 19) and roof portions (section above hood 3) are configured not to obstruct the wall portions during movement between the first and second positions (Figs. 4-5 and 7).
Regarding claim 11, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 9, as stated above. Ando further teaches (Fig. 4-5 and 7): the actuation means (7) is arranged to control and/or synchronize movement of the wall portions (9,10) between the first and second positions (Fig. 4-5), and thus controls movement of the carriage connector between the closed and open positions respectively (Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 20, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Ando further teaches (Fig. 1-7): An assembly (connecting hoods of two vehicles) comprising a first carriage connector (first connecting hood) and a second carriage connector (second connecting hood) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the connectable interface (metal frame 5) of the first carriage connector is arranged to connect to the connectable interface (metal frame 5’) of the second carriage connector (Fig. 5), connecting the passages (2), and the carriage connectors, to form an extended passage (2)(Description, para. 0001, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 21, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Ando further teaches (Fig. 1-7): the wall portions (9, 10), the roof portions (upper section of hood 3) and the floor portions (18, 19) of first carriage connector (first connecting hood) connect to the wall portions, the roof portions and the floor portions of the second carriage connector (second connecting hood) respectively to form an interconnected roof and floor, and a first and second interconnected wall (Description, para. 0001, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 22, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 21, as stated above. Ando further teaches (Fig. 1-7): retraction and extension of the roof (upper section of hood 3) and floor (18, 19) portions of the first carriage connector (first connecting hood) and the second carriage connector (second connecting hood) is constrained when the floor and roof portions are interconnected (movement constrained by connecting hood 3, actuator 7 and sealing material 8 and; Figs. 4-5 and 7).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JPH0624930B2, provided with translation), in view of Le (WO 2014006389 A1, provided) and Anikiev et al. (SU 1000324 A1, provided).
Regarding claim 19, Ando and Le teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Ando teaches (Fig. 4-5 and 7): the floor portion (18, 19) in a closed position (Fig. 7), but does not explicitly teach that the floor portion is arranged to be mechanically coupled to a coupler of the railway carriage such that the floor portion tracks the movement of the coupler when the carriage connector is in the closed position.
However, Anikiev teaches an alternate carriage connector, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a floor portion (transition bridge 10) is arranged to be mechanically coupled to a coupler (heads 5, 6) of the railway carriage (1) such that the floor portion (10) tracks the movement of the coupler (5, 6)(the transition bridge 10 is rigidly connected to the heads 5, 6 through a window beam 11 and guys 12, 6; Description, second page, lines 17-19; Fig. 1-2), the coupler having a shock absorber (2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Ando to add a coupler with a shock absorber between railway carriages and mechanically couple the floor portion to move with the coupler, as disclosed by Anikiev, with a reasonable expectation of success because the mechanical coupling would combine the shock absorbing properties of the coupler with the transition platform, improving smoothness of the wagon and increasing passenger safety when moving between wagons (Description, lines 13-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-18 and 23-24 are 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 claims and if all rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach the mountable interface is a pivot and, in the open position, the wall portions, and thus the passage, are arranged to pivot about the mountable interface in a plane which is parallel to the floor portion. While Ando further teaches (Fig. 1-7): a mountable interface (panel 9 and metal frame 4 adhering to main part 1 of a vehicle; Fig. 5), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify both components of the mounting interface (metal frame 4 and panel 9) to be a pivot, wherein in the open position, the wall portions, and thus the passage, are arranged to pivot about the mountable interface in a plane which is parallel to the floor portion. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that Ando discloses a pivot (spring hinges 11) on the connecting interface (frame 5) rather than the mounting interface (metal frame 4) with the carriage.
While another reference Anikiev et al. (SU1000324A1, provided) teaches an alternate carriage connector, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a mountable interface (hinges 4 and hinges 8) for a carriage connector (heads 5, 6) is a pivot (hinge; Fig. 1-2) and, in the open position, the wall portions (elastic profiles 17), and thus the passage (transition bridge 10), are arranged to pivot about the mountable interface (4, 8), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the fixed metal frame 4 and side wall panel 9 to be a pivotably mounted on the carriage body. Such a modification would interfere with the intended operation of Ando’s linear actuator 7 for moving the metal frame 5, and the rollers 13 sliding between the wall panel 9 and doors 10a, 10b.
Regarding claim 12 and its depending claim(s) 13-18, the prior art fails to teach a distal end that is connected to the outer face of the wall portion via a hinging member such that a first void is defined in the space between the wall portion, outer portion and hinging member; and wherein the outer portion is arranged to pivot about the mountable interface in the same plane as the wall portion. While Ando further teaches (Fig. 4-5): each wall portion (9, 10) has an inner face, facing the passage (2), and an opposing outer face (Fig. 5), and further comprises a planar outer portion having a mountable end (spring hinges 11), forming part of the mountable interface (5)(Fig. 5), and a distal end that is connected to the outer face of the wall portion (9, 10), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Ando such that a distal end that is connected to the outer face of the wall portion via a hinging member such that a first void is defined in the space between the wall portion, outer portion and hinging member; and wherein the outer portion is arranged to pivot about the mountable interface in the same plane as the wall portion. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 23 and its depending claim(s) 24, the prior art fails to teach in a swivel arrangement when the ends of the railway carriages are non-parallel with respect to one another, and wherein, during the swivel arrangement, the longitudinal length of each wall portion, in an interconnected wall, is arranged to be varied inversely with respect to one another such that the longitudinal length of the extended passage remains constant. While Ando further teaches (Fig. 1-7): in use, the extended carriage connector (Fig. 5) connects the ends of a first (1) and second railway carriage (1’) together (Description, para. 0001, lines 3-7; Fig. 5) and is in a neutral arrangement when the ends of the railway carriages are parallel with respect to one another (Fig. 5) wherein, during the neutral arrangement (Fig. 5), the longitudinal length of each wall portion, in an interconnected wall (9, 10), is the same, the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Ando such that there is a swivel arrangement when the ends of the railway carriages are non-parallel with respect to one another and wherein, during the swivel arrangement, the longitudinal length of each wall portion, in an interconnected wall, is arranged to be varied inversely with respect to one another such that the longitudinal length of the extended passage remains constant. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of carriage connectors for coupling two railway vehicle carriages: US-0418739-A, US-8925997-B2, EP-0207682-A1, PL-1864833-T3, JP-2011005902-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615