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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 3428261 B2 (herein after referred to as ‘261).
Regarding claim 1 ‘261 teaches an anti-roll car-end damping device, comprising: a pair of damping mechanisms (FIG. 3: 1), wherein the pair of damping mechanisms are mounted on a pair of end walls disposed opposite to each other on a pair of connected vehicle bodies respectively (FIG. 3: depicted on end walls of vehicle bodies), and provided symmetrically on two sides of an axis of the vehicle bodies along a length direction respectively (FIG. 3: depicted); and a connecting rod (FIG. 3: 4), wherein two ends of the connecting rod are hinged to the pair of damping mechanisms respectively (FIG. 1: depicted hinged), and the connecting rod has a length greater than a vertical motion displacement of any one of the vehicle bodies, to decouple a roll motion from a vertical motion between the vehicle bodies (FIG. 3: depicted with suitable length for this purpose); wherein each of the pair of the damping mechanisms comprises: a damper (FIG. 1: 2), wherein the damper is provided on each of the pair of the end walls (FIG. 1: mounted by bracket 8 as claimed), and a fixed end of the damper is hinged to the end wall (FIG. 1: depicted); and a swing link (FIG. 1: 3), wherein the swing link is provided with a swinging fulcrum (FIG. 1: depicted where swing link 3 meets 7), a first end of the swing link is hinged to an end of the connecting rod (FIG. 1: depicted), a second end of the swing link is hinged to a telescopic end of the damper (FIG. 1: depicted), and the first end and the second end of the swing link is swingable relative to the swinging fulcrum (FIG. 1: depicted); wherein the swing link comprises a first link body and a second link body, wherein the first link body and the second link body form an L-shaped connection (FIG. 1: depicted with vertical and horizontal portions or “link bodies” as claimed), the swinging fulcrum of the swing link is provided at the connection of the first link body and the second link body (FIG. 1: depicted), a first end of the swing link is provided at an end of the first link body away from the swinging fulcrum (FIG. 1: depicted at connection to either of 1 or 2), and a second end of the swing link is provided at an end of the second link body away from the swinging fulcrum (FIG. 1: depicted at connection to other of 1 or 2), wherein an anti-roll damping coefficient of the anti-roll car-end damping device is inversely proportional to a length proportional coefficient of the swing link (allowed for by structure), and the length proportional coefficient of the swing link is a proportional coefficient between a length of the first link body and a length of the second link body (allowed for by structure).
Regarding claim 3 ‘261 teaches that the vehicle bodies perform a roll motion, the swing link swings due to a restriction of the connecting rod to drive the damper to perform a telescopic motion to generate a damping force (FIG. 1: structure depicted in such a configuration); or when the vehicle bodies perform a vertical motion, the connecting rod moves along a vertical direction of the vehicle bodies, and no damping force is generated by the damper (FIG. 1 & 3: structure also depicted in such a configuration).
Regarding claim 6 ‘261 teaches that the damping mechanism further comprises: a first mounting base (FIG. 1: 7), fixed to the end wall (FIG. 1: depicted) and hinged between the swinging fulcrum of the swing link (FIG. 1: depicted); and a second mounting base (FIG. 1: 8), fixed to the end wall and hinged to the fixed end of the damper (FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 8 ‘261 teaches reset mechanisms (FIG. 1: 5a & 5b), wherein each of the reset mechanisms is connected between the damping mechanism and an end wall corresponding to the damping mechanism (FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 9 ‘261 teaches that the reset mechanism comprises a reset elastic piece (FIG. 1: depicted spring) and a reset mounting base (FIG. 1: depicted base), wherein a first end of the reset elastic piece is connected to the swing link (FIG. 1: depicted), a second end of the reset elastic piece is connected to the reset mounting base (FIG. 1: depicted), and the reset mounting base is fixed to the end wall (FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 10 ‘261 teaches that the first end of the reset elastic piece is connected between the swinging fulcrum of the swing link and the first end of the swing link (FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 12 ‘261 teaches a rail vehicle, comprising a plurality of vehicle bodies, wherein the anti-roll car-end damping device of claim 1 is mounted between at least one adjacent pair of vehicle bodies (FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 13 ‘261 teaches a train, comprises a plurality of rail vehicles, wherein the anti-roll car-end damping device of claim 1 is mounted between at least one pair of adjacent rail vehicles (FIG. 1: depicted).
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) 5, 7 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3428261 B2 (herein after referred to as ‘261).
Regarding claim 5 ‘261 teaches that a swing speed of the first end of the swing link is a relative roll speed between the pair of vehicle bodies (allowed for by structure), and a swing speed of the second end of the swing link is a motion speed of the telescopic end of the damper (allowed for by structure); but does not explicitly teach when the swing speed of the second end of the swing link satisfies equation 1; and a damping force generated by the damper on the second end of the swing link satisfies equation 2, a force generated by the first end of the swing link satisfies equation 3; and an equivalent damping coefficient of the first end of the swing link satisfied equation 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
52
74
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation 1
PNG
media_image2.png
36
64
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Equation 2
PNG
media_image3.png
58
152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Equation 3
PNG
media_image4.png
68
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Equation 4
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘261 to use damping forces and lever arm lengths which meet the limitations of the equations so as to achieve an optimal damping, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7 ‘261 does not explicitly teach that the first mounting base and the swinging fulcrum of the swing link are connected through a sliding bearing, the second end of the swing link and a protruding end of the damper are connected through a sliding bearing, and the second mounting base and the fixed end of the damper are connected through a sliding bearing.
However, official notice is taken that sliding bearings are commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sliding bearings as claimed because some form of bearing or similar structure would be needed for the device to function and sliding bearings are low cost.
Regarding claim 11 ‘261 does not explicitly teach that the two ends of the connecting rod are hinged to the pair of damping mechanisms through ball bearings respectively.
However, official notice is taken that ball bearings are commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used ball bearings on the two ends of the connecting rod because some form of bearing of similar structure would be needed for the device to function and ball bearings are low friction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument about Limitation A, the prior art of ‘261 is appears to be symmetrical (see FIG. 3) as claimed, and furthermore is symmetrical in the same way as the instant invention (see FIG. 1). If there are differences in the symmetry then they are not readily apparent from the arguments and comparing the drawings.
Regarding the arguments about limitation B, there is nothing in the structure that would prevent the vertical displacement from being quite small. Furthermore in FIG. 3 of ‘261 the connecting rod is depicted as much longer than typical vertical displacement between train cars. The depicted structure allows for this limitation to be met.
Regarding the arguments about limitation C, there is no need for a first and second level as those limitations are not claimed. The structure of ‘261 teaches the proportional coefficients as claimed because it teaches the same configuration as the instant invention. While ‘261 does not use the same phrasing as the instant invention, this difference in terminology does not keep it from working the same way as the instant invention.
Regarding the argument claim 5 is not an obvious optimization of the prior art, this argument is not persuasive because all of the structural elements needed are present in the prior art, it is merely the ratios of forces and related constants that must be present to meet the limitations of the claim. As stated above, nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results. These limitations could just as easily as not be satisfied by the accidental selection of parts with the correct shapes, sizes, weights, etc.
Regarding the argument that ‘261 does not teach a first and second link body, it is not persuasive because the link bodies as claimed need not be separate parts as implied in the arguments. If the claims were amended to positively affirm that the first and second link bodies were not formed integrally then this argument would be more persuasive, although it would still be rejectable by making the link bodies of ‘261 separable, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C.
Other distinctions made about the first and second link bodies are wholly unsupported in the claim and must be present in the claims to be examined; for example it is likely that the instant invention does have improved vehicle adaptability but vehicle adaptability is not claimed so it can neither be allowed or rejected. Amending the claims to include limitations associated with these or any other arguments will help move this case towards allowance in the future.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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 J Morano IV can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights