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 § 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 18, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26-31 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.
Claims 18, 21, 23 and 25 recite a “powerpack or power pack”. It is not known what is meant or encompassed by this term or phrase. In the specification, a powerpack is defined as “a rail car that is not intended for occupancy by passengers but includes essential power supply components”. Yet, the specification later discloses that the power pack may have a “central aisle” in which “passengiers may be able to stand, walk or stay in the area of the powerpack”. So, the specification does not make clear (and even confuses) what elements are required to define a powerpack for the purposes of applying prior art. This makes the metes and bounds of claims containing this term or phrase indefinite.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the second power supply unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the second power supply unit" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the powerpack" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the DC-Bus" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the powerpack" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
(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) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 28 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN106828126 issued to Wang.
With respect to claims 16, 17 and 18, Wang discloses a rail vehicle (tram: A tram (or streetcar/trolley) is an electric public transport vehicle that runs on rails) (Google AI Overview) comprising a first power supply unit 100 that has fuel cells (011, 012, 013, 014) at least one fuel storage (battery 021); fuel cell inverters (111, 121, 131, 141 are unidirectional isolated type direct converters); wherein the DC/DC converter(s) are connected in parallel (Fig. 1, wherein inverters 111, 141 are connected in parallel); wherein the first power supply unit 100 is arranged in a power pack (the tram as best understood in view of the 112 rejection above).
With respect to claims 19, 20, 21 and 24, Wang discloses a second power system (super-capacitor power supply system 003 or weak power supply 005) with a DC/DC converter connected in parallel (see rejection of claims 16-18 as well as Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 22 and 25, Wang discloses fuel cell power converter (111, 121, 131, 141) are connected to a DC bus 003.
With respect to claim 28, Wang discloses a breaking resistor 008.
With respect to claims 32-34, Wang discloses the method of operation using the elements that were previously recited.
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 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in further view of 5161468 issued to Weeger. Wang discloses a rail vehicle as discussed with respect to claim 16. Wang does not disclose a rail vehicle including a power supply located within the tram (powerpack). However, there is no discussion of a bogie. Weeger discloses a bogie for railed vehicles including trams with the bogies being non-driven (col. 3, ll. 49-51). At the time of the invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the rail vehicle of Wang with the bogies of Weeger. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tram with a bogie which is capable of being used on rails having path curvatures of any acceptable radius (col 1, ll. 49-52).
Claim(s) 26, 27, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of CN215204856 issued to Cao. Wang discloses a rail vehicle as described in the rejection of claim 16. However, Wang does not disclose the details of claim 26, 27, 29 and 31, including a rail car having a traction power converter, a traction motor and DC-Bus connecting device wherein the powerpack has no passenger seats. Cao discloses such features. Specifically, Cao discloses a passenger car Fig. 1 having a traction power converter 21, a traction motor (unnumbered but discussed throughout the English translation of the spec), and a DC-Bus connector 51 as well as the fact that the rail car which includes a passenger compartment 43 without seats. The suggestion/motivation for providing the rail car of Wang with the features of Cao would have been to provide a rail car with zero emissions which in turn reduces pollution as well as loud noise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0530-1400.
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.
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.
TROY CHAMBERS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641