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
Claims 1-19 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 4/27/2026. Claims 9 and 15-19 are objected to. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Amendments to specification have overcome objections previously set forth. Claim objections remain. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Within claim 12, line 2: “lavation” should be “levitation”.
Within claim 15, line 4: “wherein a counter-piece, which is designed” should be “wherein a counter-piece is designed”.
Within claim 16, line 1: “wherein counter-piece” should be “wherein the counter-piece”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svensson (US 6450103 B2).
Regarding claim 1: Svensson discloses a levitation frame for a vehicle of a magnetic levitation railway, comprising: a magnet unit for electromagnetic lateral guidance of the vehicle (Col.6, lines 34-39 also see the same stabilizing guide within Fig.8 and Col.12, lines 27-31 allowing magnetic levitation), and a mechanical side guide (62,66,54; Fig.2 as well as 262,254; Fig.8), wherein the mechanical side guide has a guide element structured as a lever arm (adjustment lever, 62; Fig.2 and 262), and at least one joint (62 hinged to 58; Fig.2 and 262 to 258), wherein a first region of a first end of the guide element is hinged to the levitation frame by way of the at least one joint (62 hinged to 58; Fig.2 and 262 to 258).
Regarding claim 2: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein spring and/or shock absorber element is arranged between the guide element and the levitation frame (60; Fig.2 also 260; Fig.8).
Regarding claim 3: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein the at least one joint is designed as a hinged joint that allows movements of the guide element in a transverse direction of the levitation frame (apparent from Fig.2 and 8).
Regarding claim 4: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein a longitudinal axis of the guide element extends in a vertical direction of the levitation frame (Fig.2 and 8).
Regarding claim 5: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein the guide element has an engagement element (54; Fig.2 and 254; Fig.8), which is designed to interact with a counter-piece (26; Fig.2 and 226; Fig.8) at a rail system (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 6: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 5, wherein a region of a second end of the guide element has the engagement element (54 on end of 62; Fig.2 and 254 on end of 262; Fig.8).
Regarding claim 8: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 5, wherein a longitudinal axis of the engagement element extends parallel to a longitudinal direction of the levitation frame (Fig.2 and 8).
Regarding claim 11: Svensson further discloses a vehicle for a magnetic levitation railway including at least one levitation chassis (44; Fig.2 and Col.6, lines 34-39 also see the same stabilizing guide within Fig.8 and Col.12, lines 27-31 allowing magnetic levitation) the levitation chassis having at least one levitation frame (each side of 44; Fig.2 and 244), wherein the levitation frame is designed according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: Svensson further discloses the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the levitation chassis (44 and 244) has a first levitation frame and a second levitation frame (either side of 44 and 244), the first levitation frame having at least one mechanical side guide arranged on an inner side of the first levitation frame, and the second levitation frame having at least one mechanical side guide arranged on an inner side of the second levitation frame, the inner side of the second levitation frame facing the inner side of the first levitation frame (apparent from Fig.2 and 8).
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.
Claims 7, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson.
Regarding claim 7: Svensson teaches wherein the guide element, in the region of the first end of the guide element is hinged by way of a first joint (62 hinged to 58; Fig.2 and 262 to 258; Fig.8). Svensson does not teach that the joint is one of two joints providing a second joint.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second joint in addition to the first joint at the region of the first end of the guide element, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10: Svensson teaches wherein the levitation frame (one side of 44; Fig.2) has a mechanical side guide (62,66,54; Fig.2 as well as 262,254; Fig.8). Svensson does not teach wherein the levitation frame has at least two mechanical side guides.
Svensson teaches the claimed invention except for the levitation frame having at least two mechanical side guides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional mechanical side guides, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 13: Svensson teaches having multiple levitation chassis (see Fig.3), at least one levitation frame of a first and/or last levitation chassis (Fig.2 and 8), as viewed in a direction of travel, in particular in the region of a free end thereof, having a mechanical side guide (62,66,54; Fig.2 as well as 262,254; Fig.8). Svensson does not teach wherein the levitation frame has a double side guide comprising a first and a second mechanical side guide.
Svensson teaches the claimed invention except for the levitation frame having a double side guide comprising a first and a second mechanical side guide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple mechanical side guides, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 14: Svensson teaches the use of a mechanical side guide (62,66,54; Fig.2 as well as 262,254; Fig.8) with an attachment point (58; Fig.2 and 258; Fig.8) at the levitation frame (one side of 44; Fig.2 and 244; Fig.8). Svensson does not teach the use of a double side guide with a shared center joint.
Svensson teaches the claimed invention except for a double side guide with a shared center joint. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add another mechanical side guide adjacent a first mechanical side guide, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15-19 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 claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 9 and 15-19.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations including the guide element of the mechanical side guide extends beyond an upper edge of the levitation frame as claimed within claim 9 and a guideway which at least partially encloses a levitation chassis of a vehicle as claimed within claims 15 and 18. To combine these limitations with the guiding system of Svensson would change the principle of operation of a reference.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that Svensson does not disclose the limitations of claim 1 and instead discloses two distinct and alternative embodiments for its monorail system which a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have motivation to combine, Examiner submits that Svensson discloses that the vehicle 30 within Figs.2 and 3 will have one of three propulsion systems (i.e., electromechanical power, magnetic levitation, or linear electrical motors). (Col.6, lines 34-39) and the guide system shown within Fig.2 in greater detail as cited is also shown in Fig.8 is able to be used by the magnetically levitated vehicle along the running path (Col.12, lines 27-31). Additional citations have been added above to elaborate upon that which has been previously cited, and the rejection has been updated above in response to amendments reciting “a lever arm”.
Further, the amended limitations overcome the rejections in view of Morishita and applicable allowable subject matter is indicated above.
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 HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights