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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is greater than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 3 recite the limitation “the joint” which should be “the at least one joint” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 electromagnetic lateral guidance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to, “
Regarding claims 3, 9, 12, 13 and 15: 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).
Claims 6 and 7 contain the indefinite term “thereof”. Please replace with the component to which they refer.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “two levitation frames”, “each other” followed by “the opposing levitation frame” making the claim limitations unclear. Examiner recommends changing “two levitation frames” to “a first levitation frame and a second levitation frame” and clearly recite the relationships of the levitation frames as intended.
Claim 14 recites “a first and second mechanical side guide” after reciting “a first and second mechanical side guide” within claim 13 from which claim 14 depends making it unclear if the limitation is the same component previously claimed.
Claim 19 recites “the aforementioned interaction” within line 4. It is unclear which interaction to which Applicant is referring. Examiner recommends reciting the interaction of the counter-piece and a mechanical side guide.
Claim 19 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“magnetic levitation railway”) while then claiming a process (“no interaction…during normal operation”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p). Examiner recommends amending the claim to include, “wherein the magnetic levitation railway is configured such that no interaction” to ensure the claim positively claims the product by functionality.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10-11 and 16-18 are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
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 1-8, 11 and 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 (one side of 44; Fig.2) for a vehicle of a magnetic levitation railway, comprising: a magnet unit for the electromagnetic lateral guidance of the vehicle (Col.6, lines 34-39), and a mechanical side guide (62,66,54; Fig.2), wherein the mechanical side guide has a guide element (62,66; Fig.2) and at least one joint (Fig.2), the guide element being movably connected to the levitation frame by way of the joint (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 2: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein a spring and/or shock absorber element is arranged between the guide element and the levitation frame (60; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 3: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein the joint is designed as a hinged joint, in particular with a joint axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the levitation frame, and/or allows movements of the guide element, in particular unidirectionally and/or bidirectionally, in a transverse direction of the levitation frame (apparent from Fig.2).
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).
Regarding claim 5: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein the guide element has an engagement element (54; Fig.2), which is designed to interact with a counter-piece (26; Fig.2) at a rail system (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 6: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 5, wherein the guide element is designed as a lever arm and/or in the region of a first end thereof, is hinged to the levitation frame by way of the at least one joint and/or, in the region of a second end thereof, has the engagement element (apparent from Fig.2).
Regarding claim 7: Svensson further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein the guide element, in the region of a first end thereof, is hinged by way of a first and a second joint (multiple joints of 62,66; Fig.2).
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).
Regarding claim 11: Svensson further discloses a vehicle for a magnetic levitation railway (Fig.1) including at least one levitation chassis (44; Fig.2), the levitation chassis having at least one levitation frame (either side of 44; Fig.2), 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 has two levitation frames (two sides of 44; Fig.2), which are arranged next to each other, and in particular parallel to each other, each levitation frame having at least one mechanical side guide (62,66,54; Fig.2), which is in each case arranged on an inner side of the levitation frame which faces the opposing levitation frame (apparent from Fig.2).
Claims 1, 5, 11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morishita (US 5477788 A).
Regarding claim 1: Morishita discloses a levitation frame for a vehicle of a magnetic levitation railway (Fig.1), comprising: a magnet unit for the electromagnetic lateral guidance of the vehicle (34a,34b; Fig.2), and a mechanical side guide (45a; Fig.1), wherein the mechanical side guide has a guide element (wheel of 45a; Fig.1) and at least one joint (joint of 45a; Fig.1), the guide element being movably connected to the levitation frame by way of the joint (moveable wheel 45a; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5: Morishita further discloses the levitation frame according to claim 1, wherein the guide element has an engagement element (45a; Fig.1), which is designed to interact with a counter-piece at a rail system (14b; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11: Morishita further discloses a vehicle for a magnetic levitation railway (15; Fig.2) including at least one levitation chassis (25; Fig.1), the levitation chassis having at least one levitation frame (wither side of Fig.25; Fig.1), wherein the levitation frame is designed according to claim 1 (see above rejection).
Regarding claim 15: Morishita further discloses a rail system of a magnetic levitation railway (Fig.1), comprising: a guideway, which is designed to at least partially enclose a levitation chassis of a vehicle (11; Fig.1), wherein a counter-piece (14b; Fig.1), which is designed to interact with a mechanical side guide (45a; Fig.2) of a vehicle, which is in particular designed according to claim 11 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 16: Morishita further discloses the rail system according to claim 15, wherein the counter-piece is arranged at an underside of the guideway (14b; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 17: Morishita further discloses the rail system according to claim 15, wherein the counter-piece is designed as a beam or a groove (14b; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 18: Morishita further discloses a magnetic levitation railway including a vehicle and a rail system (Fig.1), wherein the vehicle comprises: at least one levitation chassis (25; Fig.2), the levitation chassis comprising: at least one levitation frame (either side of 25; Fig.2), wherein the levitation frame is designed according to claim 1 (see above rejection); and wherein the rail system comprises: a guideway (11; Fig.2), which is designed to at least partially enclose a levitation chassis of the vehicle (Fig.2), and a counter-piece (14b; Fig.2), which is designed to interact with a mechanical side guide of the vehicle (45a; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 19: Morishita further discloses the magnetic levitation railway according to claim 18, wherein no interaction takes place between the side guide of the vehicle and the counter-piece of the rail system during normal operation of the magnetic levitation railway, and the aforementioned interaction exclusively takes place during emergency operation of the magnetic levitation railway (Col.13, lines 33-53).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita.
Regarding claim 9: Morishita teaches the levitation frame according claim 5, wherein the guide element of the mechanical side guide, and in particular the engagement element (45a; Fig.1), extends beyond an edge of the levitation frame (Fig.2). Morishita further teaches the orientation of the levitation frame traveling above the guide rail as shown in Fig.26. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the levitation frame to be orientated with the vehicle above the guide rail instead of suspended which would result in the engagement element extending beyond an upper edge of the levitation frame since it would be obvious to try the orientation of a magnetic levitation vehicle in the upright position above the guide rail as a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson.
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). 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), 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). 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) with an attachment point (58,59; Fig.2) at the levitation frame (one side of 44; Fig.2). 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).
Conclusion
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