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 (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “the free coupling end section of the center buffer projecting from an inside to an outside through the through opening of the cover device or is substantially flush with the through opening of the cover device.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the center buffer.” Claim 1 previously recites “a center buffer coupling” and also recites “a further center buffer coupling” of a further rail vehicle front end, but does not introduce “the center buffer” as a separate element. As written, it is unclear whether “the center buffer” refers to the claimed center buffer coupling, the further center buffer coupling, or some other structure. Because this limitation defines the positional relationship of the free coupling end section relative to the through opening of the cover device, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not reasonably certain.
Claim 10 recites, in relevant part, “the folds or corrugations of the first and second material sections are configured 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.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the longitudinal axis.” Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites “a through opening aligned in a longitudinal direction,” but does not positively recite any “longitudinal axis.” As written, it is unclear whether the claimed longitudinal axis is the axis of the rail vehicle, the cover device, the through opening, or some other axis. Because the claimed center-of-curvature relationship is defined relative to that axis, the scope of claim 10 is not reasonably certain.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 appears to omit punctuation between “the longitudinal axis” and “a front panel.”
Claim 6 contains a stray semicolon after “wherein.”
Claim 13 would read more cleanly if “first material section” and “second material section” were conformed to the earlier “first fabric-like material section” and “second fabric-like material section.”
Appropriate correction is required.
LIST OF REFERENCES CITED
Reference 1: EP 2 524 850 B1 (Radewagen)
Reference 2: DE 10 2018 114 245 A1 (Romund)
Reference 3: CN 215398659 U (Liu; Zhang; Yin; Xu)
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.
REJECTION A Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (Radewagen) in view of Reference 2 (Romund).
REJECTION B Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (Radewagen) in view of Reference 2 (Romund), and further in view of Reference 3 (Liu; Zhang; Yin; Xu).
REJECTION C Claims 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (Radewagen) in view of Reference 2 (Romund).
REJECTION D Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (Radewagen) in view of Reference 2 (Romund), and further in view of Reference 3 (Liu; Zhang; Yin; Xu).
──────────────────── CLAIM 1 (REJECTION A: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
A rail vehicle front end, comprising: 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; the center buffer coupling extending along a longitudinal axis in a rest position; 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 a front panel radially surrounding the center buffer coupling at least in sections such that a front opening pointing substantially in the longitudinal direction is defined between the front panel and the center buffer coupling; a cover device arranged in such a way that the front opening is at least partially covered by the cover device, the cover device comprises a through opening aligned in the longitudinal direction; the free coupling end section of the center buffer projecting from an inside to an outside through the through opening of the cover device or is substantially flush with the through opening of the cover device; and 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
Limitation: “A rail vehicle front end” Reference 1 teaches a rail-bound vehicle front-end structure in the form of a nose cone module (10) mounted at the vehicle front end, defining the frontal cladding/structure that surrounds the coupling area and presents a front opening (9). Thus, the nose cone module (10) corresponds to a rail vehicle front end.
Limitation: “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” Reference 1 teaches a central buffer coupling (11) including a coupling shaft (12) and coupling head (17) at the outward/free end. The coupling head (17) is the coupling interface that engages a corresponding coupling of another rail vehicle, thus being connectable to a further center buffer coupling.
Limitation: “the center buffer coupling extending along a longitudinal axis in a rest position” Reference 2 explicitly teaches the center buffer coupling (1) extending along a longitudinal axis (2) in a shown “zero position” (rest position), i.e., aligned with the vehicle longitudinal axis (2). Applying Reference 2’s explicit longitudinal axis/rest alignment to the coupling (11)/(12) of Reference 1 yields the claimed arrangement.
Limitation: “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” Reference 1 teaches the central buffer coupling (11) mounted by a bearing block (16) such that the coupling (11) is pivotable in horizontal and vertical directions. Such pivotability necessarily entails pivoting of the free coupling end section (coupling head (17)) relative to the coupling’s longitudinal direction/axis (i.e., relative to the vehicle/coupling axis).
Limitation: “a front panel radially surrounding the center buffer coupling at least in sections such that a front opening pointing substantially in the longitudinal direction is defined between the front panel and the center buffer coupling” Reference 1 teaches the nose cone module (10) as a front-end cladding module forming a frontal opening (9) in the vehicle front area through which the coupling shaft (12) extends. The opening (9) is bounded by an edge region (13) of the nose cone module (10). The nose cone module (10) (including its edge region (13)) surrounds the coupling (11)/(12) at least in sections and defines an opening (9) that faces forward in the coupling/vehicle longitudinal direction.
Limitation: “a cover device arranged in such a way that the front opening is at least partially covered by the cover device, the cover device comprises a through opening aligned in the longitudinal direction” Reference 1 teaches a sealing device (1) used to seal the front opening (9) “as needed.” Device (1) includes a frame (3) supporting a sealing member (2). The frame (3) together with sealing member (2) encloses an area (4) through which the coupling shaft (12) is guided, and includes a passage/opening (5) for the coupling shaft (12). Thus, device (1) at least partially covers the opening (9) while defining a through opening (5)/(4) aligned with the coupling shaft (12) (longitudinal direction).
Limitation: “the free coupling end section of the center buffer projecting from an inside to an outside through the through opening of the cover device or is substantially flush with the through opening of the cover device” Reference 1 teaches the coupling shaft (12) guided through the enclosed area (4) and opening (5) of the device (1), and the coupling head (17) positioned at the outward/free end of the coupling shaft (12) at the vehicle front. Therefore, the free coupling end section (coupling head (17) and adjacent end of coupling shaft (12)) projects from the inside (coupling compartment region) to the outside through the device-defined through opening (5)/(4). Additionally, Reference 2 teaches an alternative configuration wherein a flexible wall end can be aligned such that the free end (6) of the coupling (1) is flush with or protrudes beyond the front end of the flexible wall (7), which corresponds to the “flush with” option when applied to the cover opening boundary.
Limitation: “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” Reference 1 teaches a rigid support element in the form of the frame (3), and a flexible sealing member (2) attached to the frame (3). Reference 2 teaches a flexible wall (7) formed of flexible/elastically stretchable material supported by a support structure (8) having a plurality of rings (9). Rings (9) are rigid support elements that support and shape the flexible wall (7). Thus, Reference 2 provides a clear teaching of a rigid support element (ring (9)) combined with flexible material (wall (7)) in the same coupling-covering environment.
Limitation: “the first fabric-like material section extending radially between the front panel and the first rigid support element at least in sections” Reference 1 teaches the front opening boundary as the edge region (13) of the opening (9) in the nose cone module (10) (front panel structure). Reference 2 teaches flexible wall (7) supported by rings (9) around the coupling (1). In the obvious modification, at least one ring (9) is positioned within the front opening region of Reference 1 as a rigid support element analogous to frame (3), while flexible wall material (7) extends from that ring (9) outward toward the opening boundary/edge region (13) (front panel). That outward portion of the flexible wall (7) constitutes the claimed first fabric-like material section extending radially between the front panel (10/13) and the ring (9) at least in sections.
Limitation: “the second fabric-like material section extending radially between the center buffer coupling and the first rigid support element at least in sections” Reference 2 teaches the flexible wall (7) enclosing the coupling (1) and being attached in the region of the free end (6) of the coupling (1), and being supported by rings (9). Thus, in the modification, an inward portion of flexible wall (7) extends between the coupling (11)/(12)/(17) and the ring (9) (first rigid support element), forming the claimed second fabric-like material section extending radially between the coupling and the ring.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Reference 2’s ring-supported flexible wall (7) with rigid rings (9) into Reference 1’s front-opening sealing arrangement (device (1) for sealing opening (9) around coupling (11)) to obtain a cover that more robustly follows coupling pivoting (bearing block (16)) while maintaining an aerodynamically smooth and supported cover shape. Reference 1 already recognizes maintaining sealing coverage while permitting coupling movement, and Reference 2 provides a known structural solution (rings (9) supporting flexible wall (7) around a pivoting/deflecting coupling (1)) that predictably improves motion tracking, shape retention, and resistance to wind-load deformation.
──────────────────── CLAIM 2 (REJECTION A: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein: the cover device is connected to the front panel via a radial outer edge of the cover device or abuts the front panel; and 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
Limitation: “the cover device is connected to the front panel via a radial outer edge of the cover device or abuts the front panel” Reference 1 teaches sealing member (2) configured to press radially against an edge region (13) of the opening (9) in the frontal area when expanded, thereby abutting and sealing against the front opening boundary of the nose cone module (10). That interface corresponds to the radial outer edge of the cover device abutting/connecting to the front panel structure (10/13).
Limitation: “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” Reference 1 teaches the frame (3) preferably detachably affixed to the coupling shaft (12) of the central buffer coupling (11). That attachment is at the inner region of the cover device (device (1)) nearest the coupling, thus corresponding to the radial inner edge of the cover device being connected to the coupling. Reference 2 additionally teaches the flexible wall (7) attached in the region of the free end (6) of the coupling (1), supporting the same coupling-side connection concept.
Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide (and retain) both the opening-boundary interface and the coupling-side interface because a coupling-opening cover must be anchored relative to both the front opening structure (10/13) and the moving coupling (11/12/17) in order to maintain coverage while the coupling pivots. Reference 1 already teaches both interface concepts (outer sealing against edge region (13) and inner attachment via frame (3) to coupling shaft (12)), and Reference 2 confirms that coupling-side attachment of a flexible cover (7) is a known way to ensure the cover follows coupling motion.
──────────────────── CLAIM 3 (REJECTION A: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein 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.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “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” Reference 2 teaches multiple rings (9) arranged sequentially along the longitudinal axis (2), with flexible wall (7) spanning between axial locations along the coupling (1). For any selected ring (9), portions (regions) of the flexible wall (7) lie on either axial side of that ring (9) (i.e., toward the vehicle opening side and toward the coupling end side). Those wall regions are axially spaced from the ring (9) because they extend along axis (2) away from the ring’s axial position. When applied to Reference 1’s opening-cover arrangement, the selected ring (9) (first rigid support element) is axially spaced from a region of the outward flexible wall segment (first fabric-like section) and axially spaced from a region of the inward flexible wall segment (second fabric-like section), consistent with the claimed axial spacing relationship.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to arrange the rigid support element (ring (9)) such that flexible material (7) extends axially away on both sides because this is a predictable, standard geometric relationship for supported flexible covers: a rigid ring provides support at a given axial station while flexible cover material extends away to accommodate deformation. This arrangement improves flexibility and reduces localized buckling while preserving overall support, directly aligning with the functional goals of Reference 1’s sealing device (1) used while permitting coupling movement.
──────────────────── CLAIM 4 (REJECTION A: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein 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
Limitation: “the first rigid support element is arranged at least in sections within the front opening” Reference 1 teaches the sealing device (1) used to seal the frontal opening (9) of the nose cone module (10). The rigid frame (3) of the device (1) is positioned in the region of the opening (9) to surround the area (4) and provide an opening (5) for the coupling shaft (12). Thus, the rigid support element (frame (3)) is arranged within the front opening region.
Limitation: “such that the first rigid support element is radially surrounded by the rail vehicle front end at least in sections” Reference 1 teaches the opening (9) bounded by edge region (13) of the nose cone module (10), with the sealing device (1) positioned in that bounded region. Thus, the rail vehicle front end structure (nose cone module (10), including the boundary around opening (9)) radially surrounds the rigid support element (frame (3)) at least in sections.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to place the rigid support element within the opening envelope because the purpose of the cover is to close the opening (9) around the coupling (11) while maintaining the vehicle’s outer aerodynamic form. Locating the support element (frame (3) and/or ring (9)) within the opening region is the predictable installation location that enables sealing against edge region (13) and protection by the surrounding nose cone module (10).
──────────────────── CLAIM 5 (REJECTION A: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein: the cover device has at least a second rigid support element; the second rigid support element defines a through opening; the second rigid support element is arranged in such a way that the center buffer coupling projects through the through opening; and 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
Limitation: “the cover device has at least a second rigid support element” Reference 2 teaches a support structure (8) having a plurality of rings (9) arranged sequentially along axis (2). A plurality necessarily includes at least a “first” and at least a “second” rigid support element (e.g., two different rings (9)).
Limitation: “the second rigid support element defines a through opening” Each ring (9) of Reference 2 is a ring-shaped support element extending circumferentially around axis (2), necessarily defining an interior opening through which the coupling region passes (the ring surrounds the coupling axis).
Limitation: “the second rigid support element is arranged in such a way that the center buffer coupling projects through the through opening” Reference 2 teaches the center buffer coupling (1) extending along axis (2) and being surrounded in circumferential direction by the flexible wall (7) and the ring structure (9). Thus, the coupling (1) projects through the interior opening defined by ring (9). When applied to Reference 1, the coupling (11)/(12)/(17) likewise projects through the through opening of the applied ring (9).
Limitation: “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” Reference 2 teaches that when the coupling (1) is deflected from its zero position (rest position), the flexible wall (7) deforms and the distances/relative positions of rings (9) change (e.g., rings move closer on one side and farther on the other side due to deflection). Therefore, coupling deflection/pivoting causes a change in position and/or orientation of at least one ring (9) (the second rigid support element) relative to the vehicle structure. Reference 1 also teaches the coupling (11) pivotable via bearing block (16), making this interaction directly applicable.
Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide multiple rigid support elements (plural rings (9)) in the front opening cover because multiple supports guide deformation of the cover during coupling pivoting (bearing block (16)) more predictably than a single support, thereby maintaining an intended opening geometry around the coupling and reducing the risk of uncontrolled deformation under aerodynamic load. Reference 2 explicitly teaches this multi-ring supported wall approach for a coupling-end cover that deforms with coupling deflection, making the modification a predictable improvement to Reference 1’s sealing arrangement.
──────────────────── CLAIM 6 (REJECTION B: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3) ────────────────────
The rail vehicle front end according to claim 1, wherein the cover device comprises: a first module which covers a first region of the front opening; and a second module which covers a second region of the front opening; wherein; the first region and the second region of the front opening are not congruent; and 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
Limitation: “a first module which covers a first region of the front opening; and a second module which covers a second region of the front opening” Reference 3 teaches a split (two-part) fold-shed assembly (1) comprising two fold-shed portions (two parts of fold-shed assembly (1)) installed on respective vehicle-head openings, forming a cover over the coupler region. Each fold-shed portion covers a different portion (region) of the overall front opening/coupler gap area.
Limitation: “the first region and the second region of the front opening are not congruent” In Reference 3, each fold-shed portion of assembly (1) is installed at a different side/opening and extends toward a central coupling interface, meaning the covered regions correspond to different locations and are not the same region of the opening envelope (i.e., not congruent).
Limitation: “the first module … and the second module … via a closure device, are connectable to one another and are detachable from one another in a non-destructive manner” Reference 3 teaches that the two parts of fold-shed assembly (1) are connected to one another at the coupling interface via a middle docking frame (3). Reference 3 also teaches quick connection hardware (quick connection device (4)) including base (6), pressing plate (7), pin shaft (8), and handle (9), enabling rapid connection and separation of the cover assembly portions. These structures collectively correspond to a closure device enabling the modules to be connected and detached in a non-destructive manner for coupling/decoupling and service.
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, further in view of Reference 3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement the opening cover of Reference 1 (as modified by Reference 2) as multiple detachable modules because installation and removal around a center buffer coupling (11) and front opening (9) is constrained by available access and by the need for periodic maintenance and coupling operations. Reference 3 teaches that a split, modular fold-shed cover (1) joined via a docking frame (3) and quick connection hardware (4, 6-9) achieves rapid assembly/disassembly and reduces service time. Applying that modular/closure approach to Reference 1’s front-opening sealing concept would have predictably improved maintainability and installation convenience without changing the fundamental purpose of sealing/covering the coupling opening.
==================================================================== COVER DEVICE CLAIMS (CLAIMS 7-20)
──────────────────── CLAIM 7 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
A cover device for covering a front opening extending between a front panel and a center buffer coupling of a rail vehicle, comprising: the cover device having a through opening aligned in a longitudinal direction; the cover device being configured such that the front opening can be covered at least in sections by the cover device; 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 cover device being 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 the cover device being 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
Limitation: “A cover device for covering a front opening extending between a front panel and a center buffer coupling of a rail vehicle” Reference 1 teaches a device (1) for sealing a frontal opening (9) of a rail-bound vehicle, where the opening (9) is in the frontal region of the nose cone module (10) (front panel structure) and the opening (9) is traversed by the coupling shaft (12) of the central buffer coupling (11). Thus, the device (1) covers the front opening between the front panel structure (10/13) and the coupling (11).
Limitation: “the cover device having a through opening aligned in a longitudinal direction” Reference 1 teaches frame (3) and sealing member (2) enclosing an area (4) through which the coupling shaft (12) is guided and providing an opening (5) for the coupling shaft (12). The coupling shaft (12) extends along the vehicle/coupling longitudinal direction; thus, opening (5)/(4) is a through opening aligned in the longitudinal direction.
Limitation: “the cover device being configured such that the front opening can be covered at least in sections by the cover device” Reference 1 teaches the device (1) used to seal the opening (9) “as needed,” including an expanded state in which the sealing member (2) covers the region between the coupling (11) and the opening boundary edge region (13). This is covering the opening at least in sections.
Limitation: “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” Reference 1 teaches a rigid frame (3) supporting a flexible sealing member (2). Reference 2 teaches a flexible wall (7) (flexible/elastically stretchable material) supported by rigid rings (9) of a support structure (8). Thus, in the obvious modification, at least one ring (9) serves as a first rigid support element, while the flexible wall (7) provides flexible material that can be segmented into a first fabric-like section and second fabric-like section on respective sides of that ring (9) within the cover.
Limitation: “the first fabric-like material section … arranged … radially between the front panel and the first rigid support element” Reference 1 provides the front panel opening boundary (nose cone module (10) defining opening (9) with edge region (13)). In the modification using Reference 2, a portion of flexible wall (7) extends radially outward from the ring (9) toward the opening boundary/edge region (13), thus lying radially between the front panel boundary (10/13) and the ring (9).
Limitation: “the second fabric-like material section … arranged … radially between the center buffer coupling and the first rigid support element” Reference 2 teaches the flexible wall (7) attached in the region of the free end (6) of the coupling (1) and supported by rings (9). Thus, a portion of flexible wall (7) extends between the coupling (11/12/17) and the ring (9), lying radially between the coupling and the ring (9).
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement Reference 1’s cover device (1) using Reference 2’s ring-supported flexible wall (7) (rigid rings (9) supporting flexible material) because both references address covering/sealing the coupling opening at the vehicle front while accommodating coupling movement. Reference 2 provides a known supported flexible cover architecture that predictably improves structural support and controlled deformation, while still allowing a through opening for the coupling, thereby improving the robustness and motion compatibility of Reference 1’s cover device.
──────────────────── CLAIM 8 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein the first fabric-like material section, the second fabric-like material section and the first rigid support element are components of a bellows.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the first fabric-like material section, the second fabric-like material section and the first rigid support element are components of a bellows” Reference 1 teaches the sealing member (2) configured as an inflatable bellows (sealing member (2) as bead-like bellows) supported by a rigid frame (3). Reference 2 teaches a bellows-like supported flexible wall arrangement by using rigid rings (9) to support and shape flexible wall (7) around the coupling (1). Thus, in the combined cover device, the rigid support element (frame (3) and/or ring (9)) together with flexible material sections (sealing member (2) and/or wall (7)) constitute components of a bellows-type cover.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to employ a bellows-type construction because bellows are a known solution for maintaining a covered passage while permitting repeated relative motion and deflection. Reference 1 expressly teaches a bellows sealing member (2), and Reference 2 teaches ring-supported flexible wall (7) behavior consistent with bellows-like controlled deformation. Combining these teachings yields a predictable bellows component arrangement for the cover device.
──────────────────── CLAIM 9 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein 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
Limitation: “the first fabric-like material section and the second fabric-like material section … each have a fold or a corrugation” Reference 1 teaches the sealing member (2) configured as a bellows, which inherently includes at least one fold/corrugation characteristic of bellows structures as the bellows expands/changes shape radially around frame (3). Reference 2 teaches that, upon coupling deflection from the rest position, the flexible wall (7) deforms and forms indentations/buckled regions on a shortened side while remaining tensioned between rings (9), evidencing fold-like deformation modes of the flexible material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure each flexible section of the cover device (outward section toward opening (9)/(13) and inward section toward coupling) as a folded/corrugated bellows-like segment, consistent with the bellows teaching of Reference 1 and the deformable supported wall teaching of Reference 2.
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate folds/corrugations into each flexible section because folds/corrugations are a predictable way to increase allowable deformation stroke and reduce resistance to motion while maintaining coverage. Reference 1’s bellows sealing member (2) demonstrates that bellows/folded structures are known and suitable for the coupling-opening cover, and Reference 2 shows the flexible wall (7) deforming with coupling movement. Configuring the flexible sections as folded/corrugated segments predictably improves compliance while maintaining sealing coverage.
──────────────────── CLAIM 10 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 9, wherein the folds or corrugations of the first and second material sections are configured 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
Limitation: “folds or corrugations … configured … such that a respective center of curvature … is arranged between the longitudinal axis and an apex” Reference 1 teaches the sealing member (2) configured as a bead-like bellows designed to expand radially outward when inflated, around the central passage for the coupling shaft (12). In an outwardly bulging bellows fold/corrugation, the apex of the fold is outward (further from the axis), and the center of curvature of that outward bulge lies inward (closer to the axis) relative to the apex. Thus, Reference 1’s outwardly expanding bellows geometry provides the claimed relationship (convex outward fold), when the “longitudinal axis” is understood as the axis of the coupling shaft (12) / through opening (5).
Reference 2 reinforces the longitudinal axis concept by explicitly identifying the longitudinal axis (2) for the coupling (1), which corresponds to the axis used to evaluate inward/outward fold geometry.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select an outwardly directed fold/corrugation geometry because Reference 1 already teaches a bellows (2) that expands radially outward around the coupling passage, indicating that outward bulging fold geometry is compatible with the front-opening sealing function and maintains clearance to the coupling head (17) while sealing toward the opening boundary (13). Using outwardly convex corrugations is a predictable configuration choice for achieving the desired expansion and coverage characteristics.
──────────────────── CLAIM 11 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein 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
Limitation: “connectable to the front panel on an outside or can be placed against the front panel” Reference 1 teaches the sealing member (2) expandably configured to press radially against the edge region (13) of the frontal opening (9) of the nose cone module (10). This teaches placing the cover device against the front panel boundary (10/13) (and, by design, enabling connection/sealing engagement to that boundary).
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide an outside/front-panel interface because sealing the cover against the opening boundary is necessary to reduce airflow into the coupling compartment and to protect internal components. Reference 1 already demonstrates the predictable and functional benefit of pressing the sealing member (2) against edge region (13) of opening (9).
──────────────────── CLAIM 12 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 11, wherein 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
Limitation: “connectable to the center buffer coupling on an inside or can be placed against the center buffer coupling” Reference 1 teaches the frame (3) preferably detachably affixed to the coupling shaft (12) of the central buffer coupling (11). This is a coupling-side (inside) connection of the cover device (1). Reference 2 further teaches the flexible wall (7) attached in the region of the free end (6) of coupling (1), confirming coupling-side attachment/placement concepts.
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect the cover device to the coupling on the inside so that the cover opening stays aligned with the coupling as it pivots. Reference 1 teaches this alignment-preserving approach via frame (3) attachment to coupling shaft (12), and Reference 2 teaches analogous attachment of flexible wall (7) to the coupling (1) near its free end (6).
──────────────────── CLAIM 13 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein: the first material section is connected to the first rigid support element in a form-fitting, force-fitting or material-fitting manner; and the second material section is connected to the first rigid support element in a form-fitting, force-fitting or material-fitting manner.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the first material section is connected to the first rigid support element in a form-fitting, force-fitting or material-fitting manner” Reference 1 teaches the sealing member (2) affixed to the frame (3), which teaches a material connection between flexible element (2) and rigid support (3) consistent with at least one of form-fitting/force-fitting/material-fitting attachment types.
Additionally and more specifically, Reference 2 teaches that the flexible wall (7) is connected to the rings (9) (rigid supports) in a form-fitting and/or material-fitting manner (i.e., the wall (7) is attached to rings (9) as part of the supported flexible cover).
Limitation: “the second material section is connected to the first rigid support element in a form-fitting, force-fitting or material-fitting manner” For the same reasons, Reference 2’s flexible wall (7) attached to rings (9) provides the same attachment mode for the second flexible section relative to the rigid support element (ring (9)).
Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use known attachment techniques (form-fitting, force-fitting, and/or material-fitting) to secure flexible material (2 and/or 7) to rigid supports (3 and/or 9) because such attachment is necessary to transmit support, maintain shape, and ensure the cover moves predictably with coupling motion. Reference 1 and Reference 2 both demonstrate that a cover device for a coupling opening requires secured attachment of the flexible portion to rigid supports to function reliably.
──────────────────── CLAIM 14 (REJECTION D: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 13, wherein: the first material section is connected to the first rigid support element in the force-fitting manner; and the second material section is connected to the first rigid support element in the force-fitting manner.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the first material section is connected … in the force-fitting manner” Reference 3 teaches a clamping cloth profile (2) used to connect and secure the upper and lower edges of the fold-shed assembly (1), with the clamping accomplished by crimping/pressing (i.e., a clamp/press connection). Such clamping/crimping is a force-fitting connection between a flexible cover edge and a more rigid clamping element (2).
Limitation: “the second material section is connected … in the force-fitting manner” Reference 3 teaches the same clamping profile (2) and crimping approach used along multiple edges of the fold-shed assembly (1), providing the same force-fitting attachment technique for another flexible material edge/section.
Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, further in view of Reference 3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a force-fitting clamped connection (as taught by Reference 3’s clamping profile (2)) for securing flexible cover sections to rigid support elements because clamp-based force-fitting is a predictable, serviceable, and durable attachment method for flexible covers in rail vehicle coupling environments. Reference 3 explicitly teaches quick, practical installation using clamp/press hardware, and applying that attachment method to the flexible sections of the cover device of Reference 1 as modified by Reference 2 would have predictably improved manufacturability and maintainability.
──────────────────── CLAIM 15 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein the first rigid support element is self-supporting.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the first rigid support element is self-supporting” Reference 1 teaches the frame (3) as a structural support for sealing member (2); the frame (3) is a rigid structure that supports the cover and is self-supporting. Reference 2 teaches rings (9) forming a support structure (8) and being formed of rigid material (e.g., steel/aluminum), which are self-supporting ring members.
Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a self-supporting rigid support element because the purpose of adding a rigid support (3 and/or 9) is to maintain cover geometry and resist deformation from airflow and mechanical loads. Self-supporting rigid frames/rings are the predictable choice to achieve that function, as shown by Reference 1 (frame (3)) and Reference 2 (rings (9)).
──────────────────── CLAIM 16 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 15, wherein the entire cover device is self-supporting.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the entire cover device is self-supporting” Reference 2 teaches the flexible wall (7) together with the support structure (8) as a self-supporting unit, i.e., the flexible wall (7) is tensioned/supported by successive rigid rings (9) and associated support features, providing a structure that maintains form without external support. When applied to the cover device context of Reference 1 (device (1) positioned at opening (9) around coupling (11)), the combined structure yields a cover device that is overall self-supporting due to the ring-supported flexible wall and rigid support framework.
Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement the cover as self-supporting because a self-supporting cover better maintains its aerodynamic profile and is less prone to collapsing into the coupling region under wind load. Reference 2 directly teaches a self-supporting flexible wall (7) supported by rigid structure (8, 9) around a coupling (1), and incorporating that approach into Reference 1’s opening cover arrangement predictably yields the advantage of improved shape retention.
──────────────────── CLAIM 17 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein: the cover device has a plurality of rigid support elements; and the first or the second fabric-like material section extends between at least one adjacent pair of rigid support elements.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the cover device has a plurality of rigid support elements” Reference 2 teaches a support structure (8) having a plurality of rings (9) arranged successively along the longitudinal axis (2).
Limitation: “the first or the second fabric-like material section extends between at least one adjacent pair of rigid support elements” Reference 2 teaches flexible wall (7) supported by the rings (9) such that the wall spans between successive rings (9) and deforms by changes in spacing among those rings when the coupling (1) deflects. Thus, the flexible wall (7) (fabric-like section) extends between adjacent rings (9).
Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a plurality of rigid supports because multiple supports distribute load, guide deformation, and provide more controlled movement of the cover around a moving coupling. Reference 2 teaches that successive rings (9) provide the structural basis for a deformable yet supported flexible wall (7), and applying that arrangement to Reference 1’s cover improves shape retention and motion compatibility in a predictable manner.
──────────────────── CLAIM 18 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 7, wherein the first rigid support element is a closed ring which surrounds a circular, elliptical or polygonal cross-section.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the first rigid support element is a closed ring” Reference 2 teaches the support structure (8) includes closed rings (9) extending circumferentially around the longitudinal axis (2).
Limitation: “which surrounds a circular, elliptical or polygonal cross-section” Reference 2 teaches rings (9) having a round/circular, elliptical, or polygonal cross-section.
Accordingly, claim 18 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a closed ring support element because closed rings provide uniform circumferential support to a flexible cover and are compatible with surrounding a coupling passage. Reference 2 expressly teaches rings (9) of circular/elliptical/polygonal cross-sections as suitable rigid supports for a coupling-surrounding flexible wall (7), making the selection a predictable design choice for the cover device.
──────────────────── CLAIM 19 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 18, wherein the closed ring surrounds the rectangular cross section.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “the closed ring surrounds the rectangular cross section” Reference 2 teaches rings (9) having a polygonal cross-section. A rectangular cross-section is a common polygonal cross-section and represents an obvious selection within the taught polygonal options to match packaging constraints and opening geometry (e.g., a rectangular opening envelope around a coupling compartment).
Accordingly, claim 19 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select a rectangular polygonal ring cross-section as a predictable variant within Reference 2’s expressly taught polygonal ring cross-sections because rectangular outlines are commonly used to conform to vehicle opening envelopes and to provide flat mounting/attachment surfaces. The selection is a routine geometry choice that predictably achieves the same support function as other polygonal ring shapes.
──────────────────── CLAIM 20 (REJECTION C: Reference 1 in view of Reference 2) ────────────────────
The cover device according to claim 18, wherein all rigid support elements are closed rings.
ANALYSIS
Limitation: “all rigid support elements are closed rings” Reference 2 teaches a support structure (8) having a plurality of closed rings (9) arranged sequentially along the longitudinal axis (2). Thus, the rigid support elements of the cover structure are closed rings (9).
Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement all support elements as closed rings because using a uniform support element type simplifies manufacture and assembly, provides consistent circumferential support, and yields predictable deformation behavior along the length of the cover. Reference 2 already teaches a multi-ring structure (9) providing the desired support and deformation characteristics, making this a straightforward application of the disclosed support architecture.
Conclusion
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