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 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-22 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 October 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 10 October 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. There is no legible copy of foreign patent DE 102004032979 A1. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rail pads must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 1-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the two cross-members" is recited in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation "the two cross-members" is recited in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18-22 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 17.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, and 22, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng (CN 108330753 A).
In regards to claim 1, Feng discloses 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 (para. [0002]) being provided at the projection (4-1, 4-2) of each longitudinal beam (4),
wherein the two longitudinal beams (4) are connected to a cross- member (3) (Fig. 2) at least at one of the axial ends thereof (as seen in Fig. 2), 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.
In regards to claim 2, Feng discloses the track support according to claim 1, wherein rail pads (para. [0017]) are arranged at least at one of the projections (4-1, 4-2).
In regards to claim 3, Feng discloses 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 6, Feng discloses 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, Feng discloses the track support according to claim 1, wherein the cross-members (3) are arranged at ends of the longitudinal beams, in particular at end faces thereof (as seen in Fig. 2, the cross-member 3 is located at the end face of the projection 4-2).
In regards to claim 9, Feng discloses 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, Feng discloses the track support according to claim 1, wherein the end faces of the longitudinal beams (4) and/or of the cross-members are machined (para. [0014]), in particular ground and/or milled.
In regards to claim 11, Feng discloses 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 one of the longitudinal beams and/or at least one of the cross-members, in particular at an end face of the longitudinal beam and/or of the cross-member .
In regards to claim 16, Feng discloses 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 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) 4-5 and 12-14 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 4, Feng teaches the track support according to claim 1, wherein the track support, in the 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 (see machine translation, Reichel, para. [0042], line 17).
In regards to claim 5, Feng 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”)
Feng does not teach the cross-members being concrete.
Reichel teaches utilizing concrete (para. [0001]).
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 utilizing 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.
In regards to claim 12, Feng 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 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.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 108330753 A).
In regards to claim 8, Feng 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).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 108330753 A) in view of Holzinger (US 6568332 B1).
In regards to claim 15, 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.
Holzinger teaches the track deviating from a straight line (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 non-straight 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).
Claim(s) 17-20 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 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),
wherein the two longitudinal beams (4) are connected to a cross- member (3) (Fig. 2) at least at one of the axial ends thereof (as seen in Fig. 2),
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.
Feng does not teach the longitudinal beams being made of concrete as a precast concrete part.
Reichel teaches utilizing concrete (para. [0001]).
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 utilizing 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 18, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel and Holzinger above teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein rail pads (Feng, para. [0017]) are produced at least at one of the projections (4-1, 4.2) (Feng, Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Feng as modified by Reichel and Holzinger above teaches the method according to claim 18, 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) and/or the rail pads are machined (para. [0014]), in particular ground and/or milled.
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
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]).
Feng does not teach wherein the cross-members are precast.
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 precast with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the ease of construction, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun (CN 102720137 B1) discloses a prefabrication construction method for sections of track.
Li (CN 100465017 C) teaches a kind of concave permanent magnet suspending rail vehicle.
Xue (CN 2878478 Y) teaches a post-tensioned pre-stressed segmental prefabricated unite.
Reichel (DE 102004032979 A1) discloses a carrier for a magnetic vehicle with plates at the end of a longitudinal beam.
Hohne (US 5647280 A) discloses a rail line, in particular for a high speed magnetic train.
Teilnichtnennung (DE 4115935 A1) discloses a carriageway for an magnetic elevated railway.
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