50Notice 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.
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 16-35 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.
Claim 16 recites “bogie which can be supplied with electrical energy” making it unclear if the limitations following “can be” are considered part of the invention. Examiner recommends amending to “bogie which is configured to be supplied with electrical energy”.
Claim 17 recites “the fuel cell” and “the fuel tank” after claiming “at least one fuel cell” and “at least one fuel tank” within claim 16 making it unclear if Applicant is claiming at least one fuel cell and fuel tank as previously recited or a specific one component. Examiner recommends amending to “at least one fuel cell” and “at least one fuel tank” as previously recited. This rejection likewise applies to claims 21 and 24.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “each power supply system” within line 2; however, the power supply systems are not defined within claim 21 or 16 from which claim 22 depends making the limitation unclear to Examiner.
Claim 26 recites the limitations “the storage module” within lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 appears to be meant to depend from claim 25 instead of 24. For Examination purposes the claim will be examined as depending from claim 25.
Claim 32 recites the limitations "the machine compartment" and “the tank compartment” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitations “the power supply system” and "the permissible acceleration" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the tank compartment" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20, 23, 25, 27-31 and 34 are likewise 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 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peymandar (WO 2020016205 A1).
Regarding claim 16: Peymandar discloses a rail vehicle comprising a first passenger car (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0009]) and a powerpack (middle car 2; Fig.5) having a longitudinal axis, the powerpack and the passenger car being coupled together (Fig.5), the powerpack comprising at least one fuel cell (3; Fig.5) and at least one fuel tank (6; Fig.5) having a fuel tank valve (Para.[0041], lines 1-2), the powerpack being mounted on at least one bogie (apparent from Fig.5) and the rail vehicle comprising at least one driven bogie which can be supplied with electrical energy from the at least one fuel cell (Para.[0025]).
Regarding claim 27: Peymandar further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 16, wherein the rail vehicle comprises a second passenger car that is coupled to the powerpack (Para.[0009]).
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 17, 21-22, 25-26, 31-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Myers et al. (WO 2017091579 A1).
Regarding claim 17: Peymandar teaches the rail vehicle according to claim 16, having the powerpack (middle car 2; Fig.5), the fuel cell (3; Fig.5), and the fuel tank (6; Fig.5). Peymandar does not teach at least one machine compartment and at least one tank compartment.
However, Myers teaches the use of at least one machine compartment (16; Fig.11) and at least one tank compartment (14; Fig.11). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include separate compartments as in Myers to prevent fuel gases from entering the machine compartments from the fuel compartment for personnel safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21: Peymandar does not teach wherein the rail vehicle has a refuelling device which is connected to the fuel tank and has a right refuelling nozzle which is accessible from the right side of the longitudinal axis of the powerpack and has a left refuelling nozzle which is accessible from the left side of the longitudinal axis of the powerpack.
However, Myers teaches wherein the rail vehicle has a refuelling device which is connected to the fuel tank and has a right refuelling nozzle which is accessible from the right side of the longitudinal axis of the powerpack and has a left refuelling nozzle which is accessible from the left side of the longitudinal axis of the powerpack (Pg.4, lines 8-16). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include refuelling devices with nozzles on the right and left sides of the rail vehicle to allow efficient refuelling operations at various locations during rail vehicle stops with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22: Peymandar does not teach wherein one refuelling device is formed for each power supply system.
However, Myers teaches wherein one refuelling device is formed for each power supply system (multiple 56; Fig.8). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include refuelling devices for each power supply system to allow efficient refuelling operations at various locations during rail vehicle stops with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25: Peymandar teaches a rail vehicle with a powerpack (middle car 2; Fig.5). Peymandar does not teach wherein at least two fuel tanks are mounted on a storage module, the storage module enabling simultaneous installation and removal, and the storage module being mounted in the powerpack such that it can be displaced.
However, Myers teaches wherein at least two fuel tanks are mounted on a storage module (46; Fig.5A), the storage module enabling simultaneous installation and removal, and the storage module being mounted such that it can be displaced (Pg.9, lines 10-14). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include displaceable storage modules for fuel tanks as in Myers to provide efficient tank installation and removal for system maintenance with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26: Peymandar teaches a rail vehicle with a powerpack (middle car 2; Fig.5). Peymandar does not teach wherein the storage module can be displaced for installation and removal and wherein the storage module can be fastened detachably in an installation position in the powerpack.
However, Myers teaches wherein the storage module can be displaced for installation and removal and wherein the storage module can be fastened detachably in an installation position (Pg.9, lines 3-8). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include displaceable storage modules for fuel tanks as in Myers to provide efficient tank installation and removal for system maintenance with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31: Peymandar does not teach wherein each fuel tank is mounted by a fixed bearing and a floating bearing.
However, Myers teaches wherein each fuel tank is mounted with isolation bearings (40; Fig.4A and Pg.8, lines 31-33). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar with the isolation bearings of Myers being fixed or floating as desired to provide vibration dampening for fuel tanks to prevent component damage with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32: Peymandar does not teach wherein reinforcing elements are arranged on an outer side of the machine compartment and/or the tank compartment and connect an upper part of the car body and a lower part of the car body.
However, Myers teaches wherein reinforcing elements are arranged on an outer side of the tank compartment and connect an upper part of the car body and a lower part of the car body (ends of 18; Fig.1). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include reinforcing elements to provide a greater structural integrity of the rail vehicle to prevent component damage with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35: Peymandar does not teach wherein the tank compartment has ventilation openings.
However, Myers teaches wherein the tank compartment has ventilation openings (Pg.12, lines 22-23). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar with the ventilation openings of Myers to provide a vent for fuel gases for increased personnel safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Lavertu et al. (US 20230202347 A1).
Regarding claim 18: Peymandar teaches the rail vehicle according to claim 16, wherein the powerpack comprises a first power supply system comprising at least one fuel cell and one fuel tank (Fig.5). Peymandar does not teach a second power supply system comprising at least one fuel cell and one fuel tank.
However, Lavertu teaches a second power supply system comprising at least one fuel cell and one fuel tank (multiple power systems, Para.[0063], lines 1-5). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include a second power supply system in the powerpack to provide an increased system redundancy and capability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23: Peymandar does not teach wherein the first power supply system comprises a first controller and the second power supply system comprises a second controller.
However, Lavertu teaches wherein the first power supply system comprises a first controller (164; Fig.3) and the second power supply system comprises a second controller (multiple power systems; Para.[0063], lines 1-5). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include a second power supply system in the powerpack and controllers for each power supply system to provide an increased system redundancy and capability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Spuhler (DE 9306486 U1).
Regarding claim 19: Peymandar does not teach wherein the powerpack has an aisle which is accessible to passengers.
However, Spuhler teaches wherein the powerpack (1; Fig.2) has an aisle which is accessible to passengers (8; Fig.2). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar with an accessible aisle for passenger transit to provide access to cars on either side of the powerpack for passenger comfort and accessibility with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Shipp et al. (US 20160039281 A1).
Regarding claim 24: Peymandar does not teach wherein the fuel tank, is designed to be displaceable in the event of an overload.
However, Shipp teaches fuel tank vehicle mounts designed to be displaceable in the event of an overload (Fig.2 and Para.[0041], lines 6-9). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar with the ability of the fuel tank to displace in the event of an overload to prevent fuel tank ruptures or damage in the event of an overload condition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Wilhelm et al. (US 20240043047 A1).
Regarding claim 28: Peymandar teaches wherein the first and the second passenger car are each connected to the power pack (Para.[0009] and Fig.5). Peymandar does not specifically teach the connection being via Jacob’s bogies.
However, Wilhelm teaches the connection of rail vehicles utilizing Jacob’s bogies. 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 rail vehicles to be coupled via Jacob’s bogies since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Tomoda et al. (US 20060196475 A1).
Regarding claim 33: Peymandar teaches a rail vehicle with a powerpack (middle car 2; Fig.5). Peymandar does not teach acceleration sensors and a valve control system, the valve control system being configured such that all fuel tank valves of the power supply system can be closed if the permissible acceleration is exceeded.
However, Tomoda teaches the use of acceleration sensors and a valve control system, the valve control system being configured such that all fuel tank valves of the power supply system can be closed if the permissible acceleration is exceeded (Para.[0020]). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include acceleration sensors and valve control to provide fuel tank protections in the event of high acceleration to prevent fuel leaks in the event of a collision event with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peymandar in view of Lavertu and Tomoda.
Regarding claim 34: Peymandar teaches a rail vehicle with a powerpack (middle car 2; Fig.5). Peymandar does not teach acceleration sensors and a valve control system for each power supply system.
However, Lavertu teaches the use of a second power supply system (multiple power systems, Para.[0063], lines 1-5). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include a second power supply system in the powerpack to provide an increased system redundancy and capability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Tomoda teaches the use of acceleration sensors and a valve control system (Para.[0020]). 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 rail vehicle of Peymandar to include acceleration sensors and valve control to provide fuel tank protections in the event of high acceleration to prevent fuel leaks in the event of a collision event with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 29-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 wherein the aisle is a central aisle and wherein a machine compartment and a tank compartment are arranged on each side of the aisle and thus one power supply system is formed on each rail vehicle side as claimed within dependent claim 20. This specific arrangement of components as claimed would require an improper level of hindsight to combine with the cited prior art. Further, the prior art fails to teach the use of an extendable platform in a holding device for mounting on fuel cell as claimed within dependent claim 29. It would require an improper level of hindsight to include these components with the prior art as claimed.
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