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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-11, 15, 17, 19, and 22 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 18 are canceled. The drawing objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are withdrawn. A response to applicant’s remarks filed 20 May 2026 can be found at the end of this Office Action. This Office Action is Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 3-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 108330753 A) in view of Reichel (DE 19936756 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Feng teaches a track support of a magnetic levitation railway, comprising:
at least two substantially parallel longitudinal beams (4) (Fig. 1)
each longitudinal beam having a cross-section with at least one projection (4-1, 4-2), and the projections of parallel longitudinal beams being substantially aligned with each other (as seen in Fig. 3),
a receiving point (C) (Fig. 2) for reaction rails (8) (Fig. 4) for driving and/or guiding and/or supporting a magnetic levitation vehicle (see machine translation, para. [0002]) being provided at the projection (4-1, 4-2) of each longitudinal beam (4),
two cross-members (3) (Fig. 2), wherein the two longitudinal beams (4) are connected to (see annotated Fig. 1 below) at least one of the cross-members (3) (Fig. 2) at least at one axial end thereof (as seen in Fig. 1), and
at least one of the two cross-members (3) is an edge cross-member arranged in an end region (as seen in Fig. 2, positioned in an end region where the axial end is) of the longitudinal beams (4), and at least one of the longitudinal beams (4) and/or at least one of the cross-members has a bearing (2) (Fig. 2) for the track support,
wherein the cross-members are designed
While Feng teaches the use of prefabricating the track support (para. [0014]), Feng does not explicitly teach the use of precast concrete.
Reichel teaches the use of precast concrete (see machine translation, para. [0002], line 3, “concrete beams” and “prefabricated construction methods”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal beams and cross members of Feng to include being made from precast concrete as taught by Reichel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the track support since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the longitudinal beams (4) is divided into segments (as seen in Fig. 1), in particular longitudinal segments (as seen in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the track support, in a longitudinal direction thereof, has (as seen in Fig. 1) at least two consecutive, parallel longitudinal beams (4), which are connected
Feng does not teach a center cross-member connecting at least two consecutive, parallel longitudinal beams.
Reichel teaches a center cross-member (12) (Fig. 2) connecting at least two consecutive, parallel longitudinal beams (10.1, 10.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track support of Feng to include a center cross-member as taught by Reichel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the connection strength of the longitudinal beams (Reichel, para. [0042], line 17).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the cross-members are designed as an in-situ (para. [0029], line 5, “cast in place”) concrete (Reichel, [0002], line 3) topping of the parallel longitudinal beams (4).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the cross-members (3) (Fig. 2) are arranged between two projections (4-1, 4-2) that are oriented toward each other (as seen in Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the cross-members (3) are arranged at end faces (as seen in Fig. 2, the cross-member 3 is located at the end face of the projection 4-2) of the longitudinal beams.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the bearings of the track support
Feng does not teach the bearings being spherical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the bearings being spherical with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the support to operate more effectively when the track is not straight, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein sealing elements (para. [0015], lines 3-4, “insulating mesh panel”) and/or centering elements are arranged between the longitudinal beams (4) and/or between the longitudinal beams and the cross-members.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the end faces of the longitudinal beams (4) and/or of the cross-members are
While Feng does not explicitly teach the cross-members being ground and/or milled, Feng does teach wherein the cross-members are precision-machined (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cross-members being ground and/or milled while being precision-machined with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the burden of assembly in the field, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein a contact plate (13) (Fig. 4) for a connection (para. [0029], lines 18-19) to a longitudinal beam (4) or a cross-member is arranged at least at an end face (as seen in Figs. 2-4, the contact plate 13 is in the same plane of the end face and in close proximity to the end face and is thus arranged at an end face) of one of the longitudinal beams and/or at least one of the cross-members.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein a joint between the longitudinal beams and the cross-members is designed as
Feng does not teach wherein a joint between the longitudinal beams is a dry joint.
Reichel teaches wherein a joint (12, 2.2, 13) (Fig. 2) between the longitudinal beams (10.1, 10.2) is a dry joint (para. [0042], lines 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track support of Feng to include a dry joint as taught by Reichel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the connection strength of the longitudinal beams (see, Reichel, para. [0042], line 17).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal beams and/or the cross-members are connected to each other by
Feng does not teach wherein the longitudinal beams are connected to each other by way of tendons.
Reichel teaches wherein the longitudinal beams (10.1, 10.2) are connected to each other by way of tendons (5.1, 5.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track support of Feng to include a dry joint as taught by Reichel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the connection strength of the longitudinal beams (see, Reichel, para. [0042], line 12-13).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 13, wherein the tendons (5.1, 5.2) (Reichel, Fig. 2) are arranged in a garland-shaped manner (Reichel, as seen in Fig. 2) in the track support.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein conductor and/or set-down rails (6) are attached (as seen in Fig. 2) on at least one of the projections (4-2) and/or at least one of the cross-members.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 108330753 A) in view of Reichel (DE 19936756 A1) and Holzinger (US 6568332 B1).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel above teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal beams (4) are produced corresponding to an intended routing of the track (para. [0014]),
Feng does not teach the track deviating from a straight line in a twisted and/or horizontally and/or vertically bent manner.
Holzinger teaches the track deviating from a straight line in a horizontally bent manner (as seen in Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track support of Feng to include a horizontally bent track as taught by Holzinger for the purpose of enabling the track route to be adjusted for the environment (see Holzinger, col. 1, lines 15-17).
In regards to claim 17, Feng teaches a method for producing a track support of a magnetic levitation railway, comprising:
at least two substantially parallel longitudinal beams (4) (Fig. 1),
each longitudinal beam having a cross-section with at least one projection (4-1, 4-2), and the projections being substantially aligned with each other (as seen in Fig. 3), and
a receiving point (C) (Fig. 2) for reaction rails (8) (Fig. 4) for driving and/or guiding and/or supporting a magnetic levitation railway vehicle (para. [0002]) being provided at the projection (4-1, 4-2) of each longitudinal beam (4),
two cross-members (3) (Fig. 2), wherein the two longitudinal beams (4) are connected to at least one of the cross- members (3) (Fig. 2) at least at one axial end thereof (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
the longitudinal beams (4) are made of
subsequently at least two of the longitudinal beams (4) are connected to cross- members (3), at least one of the two cross-members (3) being an edge cross-member region (as seen in Fig. 2, positioned in an end region where the axial end is), and at least one of the longitudinal beams (4) and/or at least one of the cross- members being able to receive a bearing (2) (Fig. 2) for the track support, wherein the cross-members are
While Feng teaches the use of prefabricating the track support (para. [0014]), Feng does not explicitly teach the use of precast concrete.
Reichel teaches the use of precast concrete (see machine translation, para. [0002], line 3, “concrete beams” and “prefabricated construction methods”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal beams and cross members of Feng to include being made from precast concrete as taught by Reichel with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the track support since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Feng does not teach the length and bend of the longitudinal beams are produced corresponding to the installation point thereof in the routing of the track.
Holzinger teaches the length and bend of the longitudinal beams are produced corresponding to the installation point thereof in the routing of the track (as seen in Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track support of Feng to include the shape and bend of the longitudinal beams corresponding to the installation point as taught by Holzinger for the purpose of enabling the track route to be adjusted for the environment (see Holzinger, col. 1, lines 15-17).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel and Holzinger above teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the cross-member (3) (Feng, Fig. 2) is poured (Feng, para. [0029], line 5, “cast in place”) between the longitudinal beams (4) (Feng, Fig. 2) from in-situ concrete (Reichel, para. [0001]).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel and Holzinger above teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein the longitudinal beam (4) (Feng, Fig. 2) and/or the cross-member are poured as a precast (Feng, para. [0014], line 1) concrete part (Reichel, para. [0001]), extruded and/or printed.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel and Holzinger above teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein an end face of each longitudinal beam (4) (Feng, Fig. 2) and/or of each cross-member and/or the receiving points (C) (Feng, Fig. 2) for the reaction rails (8) (Feng, Fig. 4) are ground and/or milled.
While Feng does not explicitly teach the end face of each longitudinal beam, cross-member, or receiving points being ground and/or milled, Feng does teach wherein the cross-members are precision-machined (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the end face of each longitudinal beam, cross-member, or receiving points being ground and/or milled while being precision-machined with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the burden of assembly in the field, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 108330753 A) in view of Reichel (DE 19936756 A1), Holzinger (US 6568332 B1), and Yang (CN 111188231 A).
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel and Holzinger above teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the cross-members (3) (Feng, Fig. 2) are produced as precast concrete (Reichel, para. [0002], line 3) parts and
Feng does not teach wherein the cross-members are connected by way of tendons to end faces of the longitudinal beams.
Yang teaches wherein the cross-members (2) (Fig. 1) are connected by way of tendons (3) to end faces of the longitudinal beams (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cross-members of Feng to include tendons connecting the cross-members to the end faces of the longitudinal beams as taught by Yang for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of construction (see machine translation, Yang, para. [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Reichel does not disclose precast concrete parts. Examiner disagrees, and notes para. [0002], line 3 of Reichel which states “…reinforced concrete beams, mostly manufactured using prefabricated construction methods…” Thus Reichel does teach precast concrete parts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights