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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 6, 2023 has been considered.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending. Claim 20 is canceled. Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1, 6, and 13 made in the Office action mailed March 17, 2026 are withdrawn. The August 17, 2026 amendment supplied the requested antecedent-basis and punctuation corrections and consistently recited the first and second fabric-like material sections.
________________________________________
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the Office action mailed March 17, 2026 is withdrawn. Amended claim 1 now consistently recites the center buffer coupling and a longitudinal direction. Amended claim 7 supplies the longitudinal axis inherited by amended claim 10. The amendments therefore cure the specific indefiniteness grounds stated in the prior action.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on EP 2 524 850 A1 in view of DE 10 2018 114 245 A1, and further in view of CN 215398659 U for claims 6 and 14, are withdrawn and are not maintained in this action.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - WO 2018/065139 A1.
Reference 2 - DE 10 2018 111 979 A1.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Reference 1 discloses a rail-vehicle nose having a traction coupling 1 within a nose opening 3, nose flaps 4 and 5, and a flexible textile, tarpaulin, or rubber cuff 6 that spans the space between the coupling and the nose flap, follows coupling movement, and may include radial folds 8, bellows portions 9, and strip-shaped, wire-shaped, or otherwise configured reinforcements that establish a desired contour and deformation. Reference 2 discloses a coupling-cover architecture having a functional-textile envelope 22.1 held in shape by support structure 38, including multiple support elements 39 guided along longitudinal guides 40, and describes rigid, flexible, modular, and releasably connected cover subassemblies. The combined teaching places a rigid annular support within Reference 1's radial cuff so the cuff has a radially outer fabric portion between the vehicle front and the support and a radially inner fabric portion between the support and the coupling, while retaining the fold reserve needed for coupling movement.
________________________________________
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A rail vehicle front end, comprising: (L2) a center buffer coupling with a free coupling end section such that the free coupling end section is connectable to a further center buffer coupling of a further rail vehicle front end; (L3) the center buffer coupling extending along a longitudinal axis in a rest position; (L4) the center buffer coupling being designed and mounted in such a way that the free coupling end section can be pivoted with respect to the longitudinal axis; (L5) a front panel radially surrounding the center buffer coupling at least in sections such that a front opening pointing substantially in a longitudinal direction is defined between the front panel and the center buffer coupling; (L6) a cover device arranged in such a way that the front opening is at least partially covered by the cover device, the cover device comprising a through opening aligned in the longitudinal direction; (L7) the free coupling end section of the center buffer coupling projecting from an inside to an outside through the through opening of the cover device or being substantially flush with the through opening of the cover device; and (L8) the cover device having at least a first rigid support element and at least a first fabric-like material section and a second fabric-like material section, the first fabric-like material section extending radially between the front panel and the first rigid support element at least in sections, the second fabric-like material section extending radially between the center buffer coupling and the first rigid support element at least in sections.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses the front of a rail vehicle in Figures 1-4. (L2) It identifies traction coupling 1 as the coupling accessible through nose opening 3 for coupling rail-vehicle parts, including mechanical, electrical, and compressed-air coupling regions. (L3) The ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the illustrated elongate coupling in its centered rest position to extend along the vehicle's fore-aft longitudinal axis; Reference 2 expressly identifies coupling longitudinal axis LK for coupling device 1 in paragraphs 54 and 57. (L4) Reference 1 expressly teaches that coupling 1 pivots horizontally and vertically and that flexible sleeve 6 permits that movement; see the description corresponding to Figures 1-4 and the discussion of folds 8. (L5) Nose ring 2 and the front contour 10 radially surround coupling 1 and define nose opening 3 between the surrounding front structure and coupling 1; see Figures 1-3 and numerals 1-3 and 10. (L6) Flexible sleeve 6 covers the intermediate space between nose flaps 4, 5 and coupling 1, leaving the mechanical and other coupling regions accessible through its central opening; see Figures 2-8 and the description of sleeve 6. (L7) Figure 3 expressly shows coupling 1 projecting forward from opening 3 beyond nose ring 2 and front contour 10. (L8) Reference 1 discloses a fabric-like sleeve made from textile, tarpaulin, or rubber, with radially extending folds 8 and optional reinforcements for defining its contour and deformation; see Figures 5-8 and the reinforcement disclosure. Reference 2 teaches holding functional-textile envelope 22.1 in shape with rigid support structure 38 formed from annular support elements 39, including a reinforced support element 41; see Figures 4a-4c and paragraphs 60 and 65. In the combined device, one annular support element 39 is placed at an intermediate radial location in sleeve 6. The sleeve portion from the nose flap/front structure to that support is the first fabric-like section, and the sleeve portion from that support to coupling 1 is the second fabric-like section. This is the claimed outer and inner radial relationship.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place Reference 2's annular support structure in Reference 1's cuff to maintain a predetermined aerodynamic contour and controlled folding while preserving the cuff's flexible accommodation of coupling movement. Reference 1 invites strip-shaped, wire-shaped, or otherwise configured reinforcements for those functions, and Reference 2 supplies a known ring-supported functional-textile implementation. Locating the support between the front-side and coupling-side edges technically applies that known support where it controls both adjoining cuff portions. The resulting outer and inner fabric portions would have performed their established covering and flexing functions, and the annular support its established contour-retaining function, with predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein: (L2) the cover device is connected to the front panel via a radial outer edge of the cover device or abuts the front panel; and (L3) the cover device is connected to the center buffer coupling via a radial inner edge of the cover device or abuts the center buffer coupling.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 1 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 expressly connects the front-side edge of flexible cuff 6 directly or indirectly to nose flaps 4 and 5, which form the front closure at nose opening 3; see Figures 2-4 and the description of the cuff-to-flap connection. (L3) Reference 1 also expressly connects the coupling-side edge of cuff 6 directly or indirectly to traction coupling 1, including laterally or at the rear of the coupling. These are the claimed radial outer and radial inner edge connections in the Figure 5-8 radial cuff geometry.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's two disclosed edge connections in the combined cover because they allow sleeve 6 to span and seal the space as the flaps and coupling move. Reference 2's rigid support technically controls the intervening cuff contour without altering those edge connections. Retaining the disclosed attachments would have predictably preserved Reference 1's shielding function while adding Reference 2's contour control.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein: (L2) the cover device is arranged within the rail vehicle front end in such a way that the first rigid support element is arranged in a manner axially spaced from a region of the first fabric-like material section and axially spaced from a region of the second fabric-like material section; and (L3) the axial spacing is provided such that the cover device extends from the front panel inward away from the free coupling end section of the center buffer coupling.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 1 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2's Figure 4b and paragraph 65 show each transverse support element 39 with functional textile extending axially from both sides of the support, so regions of the textile on both sides are axially spaced from that support. Reference 1 shows cuff 6 within nose opening 3 and teaches folded or bellows portions that can be shaped to a desired contour by reinforcements. Applying Reference 2's transverse support geometry to Reference 1's cuff yields first and second fabric regions that depart axially inward from the intermediate ring. (L3) Reference 1's Figures 3 and 4 locate cuff 6 behind the forward coupling end and within nose contour 10. Reference 2 paragraphs 54 and 57 disclose its cover extending rearward from coupling head 3 toward vehicle frame 6 along axis LK. In the combined arrangement, the front-side cuff edge lies at the front structure and the supported cuff extends inward, away from the free coupling end, as claimed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the inward, axially relieved profile because Reference 1 requires sleeve 6 to fold without interfering with flap kinematics or coupling movement, while Reference 2 teaches that its axially spaced ring-supported textile can collapse and extend along longitudinal guides 40. Orienting that known profile inward technically uses available space behind the front contour and avoids adding structure in front of the coupling end. The arrangement would have predictably provided fold reserve and contour control.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein (L2) the first rigid support element is arranged at least in sections within the front opening such that the first rigid support element is radially surrounded by the rail vehicle front end at least in sections.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 1 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 locates the entirety of sleeve 6 within nose ring 2 and nose opening 3 when the nose flaps are closed; see Figures 2-4. The annular support introduced into that sleeve from Reference 2 is consequently within opening 3 and radially surrounded by nose ring 2 and front contour 10.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place Reference 2's support within the same opening occupied by Reference 1's sleeve because that placement supports the sleeve without projecting beyond the aerodynamic nose contour or obstructing the accessible coupling end. The references' structures are technically compatible in that location. The internal placement would have predictably supported the cuff while preserving the disclosed nose and coupling geometry.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein: (L2) the cover device has at least a second rigid support element; (L3) the second rigid support element defines a through opening; (L4) the second rigid support element is arranged in such a way that the center buffer coupling projects through the through opening; and (L5) the center buffer coupling and the cover device are arranged in such a way that pivoting the center buffer coupling with respect to the longitudinal axis causes a change in position and/or orientation of the second rigid support element.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 1 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2's support structure 38 includes a plurality of support elements 39 and may include reinforced support element 41; see Figure 4b and paragraph 65. (L3) Each illustrated closed transverse support element surrounds and thereby defines the opening through which coupling device 1 extends. (L4) Figure 4b shows the coupling axis and covered coupling extending through those support openings, and Reference 1 shows traction coupling 1 through the central opening of cuff 6. (L5) Reference 1 teaches that cuff 6 follows horizontal and vertical pivoting of coupling 1. In the combined device, a coupling-side support ring carried by the cuff around coupling 1 necessarily changes position or orientation with the cuff as the coupling pivots; this is an express functional objective of Reference 1 and a direct mechanical consequence of locating the ring in the moving cuff.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a second Reference 2 ring near Reference 1's coupling-side cuff edge to distribute local loads and preserve clearance around the moving coupling. Reference 2 uses multiple rings to distribute textile support and control cover shape, so allowing that cuff-carried ring to move with the pivoting coupling technically preserves Reference 1's required coupling mobility and avoids binding. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein the cover device comprises: (L2) a first module which covers a first region of the front opening; and (L3) a second module which covers a second region of the front opening; wherein: (L4) the first region and the second region of the front opening are not congruent; and (L5) the first module of the cover device and the second module of the cover device, via a closure device, are connectable to one another and are detachable from one another in a non-destructive manner.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 1 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 expressly permits a multipart cuff composed of several cooperating shielding elements or cuff segments, including a first segment positioned on one side of coupling 1. (L3) Reference 1 likewise permits a second cooperating segment positioned above, below, left, or right of coupling 1 relative to the first segment. (L4) Those different segment locations cover different, noncongruent regions of opening 3, and Reference 2 paragraphs 58-60 disclose modular cover subassemblies 21, 22.1, and 22.2 having different shapes, materials, and assigned cover regions. (L5) Reference 2 paragraphs 63, 64, and 68 disclose connection regions and readily releasable, durable closures, expressly including zippers and snap fasteners, so adjacent cover modules can be separated without destroying them.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to join Reference 1's noncongruent cuff modules with Reference 2's disclosed zipper or snap closure to permit local removal and replacement while maintaining coverage in service. Reference 1's multipart cuff segments accommodate the geometry around the coupling, and Reference 2's releasable closures technically provide modular access and maintenance without changing that function. Substituting the known non-destructive closure at the module joint would have yielded the predictable serviceability benefit taught by Reference 2.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A cover device for covering a front opening extending between a front panel and a center buffer coupling of a rail vehicle, the center buffer coupling extending along a longitudinal axis in a rest position, the cover device comprising: (L2) a first rigid support element; (L3) a first fabric-like material section extending radially from the first rigid support element; (L4) a second fabric-like material section extending radially from the first rigid support element; and (L5) a through opening aligned in a longitudinal direction; wherein: (L6) the cover device is configured such that the front opening can be covered at least in sections by the cover device; (L7) the cover device is configured to be arranged on the rail vehicle in such a way that the first fabric-like material section is arranged at least in sections radially between the front panel and the first rigid support element; and (L8) the cover device is configured in such a way that the second fabric-like material section can be arranged at least in sections radially between the center buffer coupling and the first rigid support element.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses flexible cuff 6 for covering the intermediate space of nose opening 3 between nose flaps 4, 5/front contour 10 and traction coupling 1, and the elongate coupling has the vehicle fore-aft longitudinal axis shown in Figures 1-4. Reference 2 expressly identifies longitudinal axis LK for coupling device 1. (L2) Reference 2 discloses rigid annular support elements 39 of support structure 38 holding functional-textile envelope 22.1 in shape; see Figures 4a-4c and paragraphs 60 and 65. (L3)-(L4) Reference 1's cuff spans radially between the front-side structure and coupling 1 and has folds 8 extending substantially in the radial direction around coupling 1; see Figures 5-8. Placing Reference 2's annular support at an intermediate radial location divides the continuous cuff into a first fabric section extending radially outward from the support and a second fabric section extending radially inward from the support. (L5) Cuff 6 leaves the coupling regions accessible through its central opening, and Figure 3 shows coupling 1 projecting longitudinally through the nose opening. (L6) Figures 2-4 show cuff 6 covering the space within opening 3. (L7) The outer portion of the combined cuff lies radially between the nose flap/front structure and the intermediate support. (L8) The inner portion lies radially between coupling 1 and that support. These relative locations are a direct result of inserting the annular support into the radial cuff disclosed by Reference 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use one of Reference 2's annular support elements at an intermediate radius in Reference 1's cuff to resist aerodynamic deformation and control folding without closing the coupling opening. Reference 1 teaches reinforcements for predetermined contour and desired deformation, and Reference 2 supplies a technically compatible rigid annular support architecture for a functional-textile coupling cover. The cuff would continue from both sides of the intermediate support to its existing attachments, predictably producing the two claimed radial sections while preserving their established flexibility and shielding functions.
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein (L2) the first fabric-like material section, the second fabric-like material section and the first rigid support element are components of a bellows.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 expressly teaches that flexible cuff 6 may be at least partly a bellows 9 with multiple folds, while Figures 5-8 show radial fold arrangements. Reference 2 paragraph 63 describes flexible cover subassembly 22.1 as bellows-like and paragraph 65 places support elements 39 within its textile structure. The two fabric portions and intervening annular support in the combined device are therefore components of the supported bellows.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 2's annular support with Reference 1's disclosed bellows because using the support as an internal bellows component controls the cuff contour while allowing the bellows to expand and contract. The parts technically continue to perform their known support and flexure functions. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
________________________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein (L2) the first fabric-like material section and the second fabric-like material section are arranged in such a way that they each have a fold or a corrugation.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 expressly discloses multiple folds 8 in cuff 6 and bellows portions 9 having three, four, or more folds; see Figures 5-8. When the annular support is placed between the cuff's outer and inner edges, a fold is retained on each radial side by selecting the disclosed multi-fold arrangement, so both the first and second fabric sections have a fold.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's folds on both sides of an intermediate Reference 2 support so neither the front-side nor coupling-side portion becomes the motion-limiting part of the cuff. Reference 1 uses multiple folds to permit low-force horizontal and vertical movement, and the intermediate support is technically compatible with preserving that mobility. The arrangement would have predictably distributed the available expansion reserve.
________________________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 9, wherein (L2) the folds or corrugations of the first and second fabric-like material sections are configured in such a way that a respective center of curvature of a fold or corrugation is arranged between the longitudinal axis and an apex of the fold or an apex of the corrugation.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 9 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 Figure 5 shows outwardly convex folds 8 extending around coupling 1 in the radial direction, and Figures 6-8 show additional outwardly convex folded or bellows regions. For each outwardly convex fold, the geometric center of curvature lies radially inward of its apex, between the coupling longitudinal axis and the apex. Retaining at least one such disclosed fold on each side of the intermediate annular support produces the claimed geometry in both fabric sections. This location is read directly from the illustrated outwardly convex curvature; no numerical curvature is inferred.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 2's intermediate support with Reference 1's outwardly convex fold arrangement because retaining that orientation on both sides of the support preserves the disclosed folding action and avoids reversing adjacent folds into interference with the coupling or front structure. The structures are technically compatible, and the resulting center/apex relationship would have followed predictably from the selected curvature.
________________________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein (L2) the cover device is configured such that it is connectable to the front panel on an outside or can be placed against the front panel.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 expressly teaches connecting cuff 6 directly or indirectly to nose flaps 4 and 5, preferably on the inside surface facing opening 3; see Figures 2-4. The flaps occupy and close the vehicle front panel opening, so the cuff is configured for connection to that front structure at its outside radial edge.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's front-side connection unchanged when adding Reference 2's intermediate support because that connection supplies the reaction point for the cuff and preserves the disclosed shielding operation as flaps 4 and 5 open. The added support technically controls the intervening contour without changing the attachment. The combination would have predictably preserved the cuff's front-side support and covering function.
________________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 11, wherein (L2) the cover device is configured in such a way that it is connectable to the center buffer coupling on an inside or can be placed against the center buffer coupling.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 11 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 expressly teaches that cuff 6 is connected tightly, directly or indirectly, in the region of traction coupling 1, including a lateral or rear coupling connection. This is the claimed inside connection at the cuff's inner radial edge.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's coupling-side attachment in the Reference 2-supported cuff because removing it would defeat the disclosed seal and leave the inner edge uncontrolled. The attachment technically allows the cuff to cover the space while following coupling motion, while the added support controls contour. The combination would have predictably maintained the seal while allowing the supported cuff to follow the coupling.
________________________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein: (L2) the first fabric-like material section is connected to the first rigid support element in a form-fitting, force-fitting or material-fitting manner; and (L3) the second fabric-like material section is connected to the first rigid support element in a form-fitting, force-fitting or material-fitting manner.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2)-(L3) Reference 2 paragraph 65 and claim 11 disclose functional textile supported at its inner circumference by support elements 39, and paragraph 68 and claim 18 expressly identify form-fitting and force-fitting connections as suitable durable connections in the same modular cover. When one support element 39 is placed within Reference 1's cuff, securing the textile to both sides of that support by the disclosed form-fit or force-fit prevents the textile from sliding away from the contour-defining ring. The connection is applied separately to the first and second textile portions adjoining the ring.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Reference 2's disclosed form-fit or force-fit connection at each textile-to-ring interface so the support performs its stated contour-holding function under movement and aerodynamic loading. Applying the same known fastening class to both adjoining portions technically gives symmetric load transfer and prevents bunching. The arrangement would have permitted predictable manufacture and operation of the supported cuff.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 13, wherein: (L2) the first fabric-like material section is connected to the first rigid support element in the force-fitting manner; and (L3) the second fabric-like material section is connected to the first rigid support element in the force-fitting manner.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 13 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2)-(L3) Reference 2 claim 18 expressly lists a force-fitting connection among the releasable, durable connections for its coupling-cover subassemblies. Selecting that disclosed connection class for clamping each adjoining textile portion to support element 39 makes both sides force-fitted to the same ring, as claimed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Reference 2's disclosed clamped force-fit on both sides of the support to simplify parts and assembly, distribute load uniformly, and retain the textile during repeated cuff movement. Reference 2 presents force-fitting as one of a finite number of identified cover-connection alternatives, so the same connection is technically suitable at both interfaces. The choice would have predictably performed the securing function described for the supported textile.
________________________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein (L2) the first rigid support element is self-supporting.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2's support elements 39 are closed, rigid transverse profile or wire elements that hold functional textile 22.1 in shape; Figure 4b shows each element maintaining its annular polygonal form. Paragraph 63 also expressly identifies self-supporting rigid support structure 30 as a cover-support implementation. A closed rigid ring that retains its own shape without an additional external shape-giving member is self-supporting. Guides 40 locate elements 39 axially but do not supply their closed transverse shape.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's disclosed closed rigid form for the intermediate annular support in Reference 1's cuff so the ring, rather than an external scaffold, establishes the cuff contour. Reference 2 uses rigid shape-retaining structures so the cover maintains its intended form, and that known structure is technically compatible with Reference 1's flexible cuff. The combination would have yielded the predictable shape-retaining function of a rigid annular support.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 15, wherein (L2) the entire cover device is self-supporting.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 15 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 1 teaches reinforcements that impose a predetermined contour on cuff 6, while Reference 2 paragraphs 60 and 65 disclose functional-textile envelope 22.1 held in shape by internal support structure 38 and multiple rigid annular elements 39. Reference 2 paragraph 63 expressly teaches a self-supporting cover support structure. Combining those teachings yields a cover whose own textile, internal reinforcements, and rigid rings maintain the cover's shape and structure without an additional external shape-giving support. Its necessary edge connections to the vehicle and coupling attach the cover but are not separate contour-support scaffolding.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use enough of Reference 2's disclosed annular supports and Reference 1's disclosed reinforcements to make the complete cuff resist collapse from aerodynamic loads while still flexing at its folds. That technically compatible choice directly serves both references' stated contour-control purpose. The combination would have predictably made the cover assembly self-supporting as a whole.
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein: (L2) the cover device has a plurality of rigid support elements; and (L3) the first or the second fabric-like material section extends between at least one adjacent pair of rigid support elements.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2 Figure 4b and paragraph 65 expressly disclose support structure 38 formed from multiple support elements 39. (L3) Functional-textile envelope 22.1 extends continuously between each adjacent pair of those elements, which support the textile at its inner circumference. Applying that multi-ring structure to Reference 1's cuff gives at least one of the fabric sections a span between adjacent rings.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use more than one Reference 2 ring where Reference 1's cuff needs extended contour control, leaving textile between adjacent rings so the cuff can flex. Reference 2 teaches multiple adjacent rings to distribute support along the textile envelope and permit axial collapse along guides 40, making the arrangement technically suitable for Reference 1's cuff. The combination would have predictably provided distributed contour control with intervening cuff flexibility.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein (L2) the first rigid support element is a closed ring which surrounds a circular, elliptical or polygonal cross-section.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2 Figure 4b depicts support elements 39 as closed transverse loops surrounding the covered coupling and textile-tube cross-section. The illustrated loop is polygonal, and paragraph 65 identifies the support elements as profile or wire elements having square or rectangular form. Thus the selected first support is a closed ring surrounding a polygonal cross-section.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 2's closed polygonal ring shape when placing the support in Reference 1's cuff because it gives continuous circumferential contour control and maintains the central coupling opening with a simple manufacturable profile. That disclosed support geometry is technically compatible with the functional textile around the coupling. The shape would have predictably performed its known contour-retaining function in the combined cuff.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 18, wherein (L2) the closed ring surrounds the rectangular cross section.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 18 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2 Figure 4b specifically shows closed support elements 39 surrounding a substantially rectangular textile-envelope cross-section, and paragraph 65 describes square or rectangular profile or wire support elements. Selecting the illustrated rectangular loop supplies the claimed rectangular cross-section.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Reference 2's disclosed rectangular closed-loop geometry where the rail-vehicle opening and equipment envelope are correspondingly rectangular. Using the disclosed geometry is technically sensible because it provides a close-fitting support around the relevant coupling-cover envelope. The combination would have yielded predictable results consistent with Figure 4b.
________________________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The cover device according to claim 7, wherein: (L2) the first rigid support element is arranged in a manner axially spaced from a region of the first fabric-like material section and axially spaced from a region of the second fabric-like material section; and (L3) the axial spacing is provided such that the cover device extends from the front panel inward along the longitudinal axis.
Analysis
(L1) The rejection of claim 7 based on Reference 1 and Reference 2 is incorporated here. (L2) Reference 2 Figure 4b and paragraph 65 show each transverse ring 39 with functional textile continuing axially on both sides, so regions of the textile on both sides are axially spaced from the ring. Reference 1 permits cuff 6 to use folds, bellows portions, and reinforcements to establish a selected contour. Applying Reference 2's transverse ring geometry to the radially outer and inner portions of cuff 6 creates fabric regions axially offset from the common ring. (L3) Reference 1 Figures 3 and 4 place cuff 6 within the rail-vehicle nose behind the forward coupling end, and Reference 2 paragraphs 54 and 57 extend cover 20 from coupling head 3 rearward toward vehicle frame 6 along longitudinal axis LK. The combined cuff therefore extends from the front structure inward along the longitudinal axis.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the supported cuff inward because both references place the protective cover behind the coupling end and Reference 1 requires the cuff to fold within the nose without interfering with coupling access. Reference 2's axially collapsible ring-and-textile structure technically provides a known way to create that inward fold reserve using available nose volume. The selected orientation would have predictably preserved coupling clearance.
________________________________________
Response to Arguments
Applicant's August 17, 2026 amendments and remarks have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that adding DE 10 2018 114 245 A1's fixed rings 9 to EP 2 524 850 A1's sealing body 2 would inhibit the radial inflation or deflation on which EP 2 524 850 A1 relies and would change EP 2 524 850 A1's principle of operation. The argument is persuasive with respect to the combination stated in the March 17, 2026 action. The EP 2 524 850 A1/DE 10 2018 114 245 A1 grounds, including the further CN 215398659 U grounds, are therefore withdrawn and are not repeated here.
The present rejection does not add a fixed ring to EP 2 524 850 A1's radially variable inflatable sealing body. Reference 1 instead discloses a non-inflatable flexible cuff 6 that is connected between the nose flap/front structure and coupling 1, uses folds 8 or bellows 9 to follow coupling and flap motion, and expressly may include reinforcements for a predetermined contour and deformation. Reference 2's annular support elements 39 perform that expressly invited contour-control function in a functional-textile coupling cover. The added ring does not prevent Reference 1's folds from unfolding; the analysis retains folds on both radial sides of the ring. The new combination therefore does not depend on the radial expansion principle criticized in the remarks.
For claim 2, Reference 1 expressly supplies both challenged connections: cuff 6 is connected at its front-side edge to nose flap/front structure 4, 5 and at its inner edge to traction coupling 1. Those connections are part of Reference 1's operating cuff and do not inhibit an inflatable sealing body because Reference 1's cuff is not the EP 2 524 850 A1 inflatable body.
For claim 3 and new claim 21, Applicant's assertion that DE 10 2018 114 245 A1's rings extend outward does not address the applied references. Reference 1 places cuff 6 within the nose and behind the projecting coupling end. Reference 2 extends its supported textile cover from the coupling head toward the vehicle frame along longitudinal axis LK and shows fabric regions axially displaced on both sides of transverse supports 39. The inward orientation and axial displacement are addressed in the individual claim analyses.
For claim 15, Applicant proposes that self-supporting means the rigid element is not supported by any structure other than the fabric sections. The specification at paragraph 40 instead explains self-supporting as the cover having, on its own, a shape and structure that remains in place without additional support from the outside. Reference 2's closed rigid rings establish and retain their transverse shape; guides 40 locate the rings axially but do not create their closed transverse contour. The internal ring is part of the cover, not an additional external shape-giving structure. Claims 15 and 16 are addressed under that construction.
Applicant's remaining arguments are directed to the withdrawn grounds and do not overcome the separate Reference 1/Reference 2 combination set forth above.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected. Claim 20 is canceled. No claim is indicated as allowable.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office action mailed March 17, 2026 over EP 2 524 850 A1 in view of DE 10 2018 114 245 A1, and further in view of CN 215398659 U as to claims 6 and 14, is withdrawn and is not reapplied. Applicant's argument that adding DE 10 2018 114 245 A1's fixed rings to EP 2 524 850 A1's inflatable sealing body would change EP 2 524 850 A1's principle of operation is persuasive as to that combination.
Art Considered but Not Applied
EP 2 524 850 A1 was considered but not applied because it discloses an inflatable, radially variable sealing body rather than a non-inflatable cuff with two fabric-like sections on a common rigid support. DE 10 2018 114 245 A1 was considered but not applied because its axial train of support rings does not supply the claimed radial two-section relationship. CN 215398659 U was considered but not applied because Reference 2 already supplies the connection and multi-ring teachings for which that publication had been used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (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 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights