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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 5-8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Within claim 1, line 5: “connection to further a coupling head” should be “connection to a further coupling head”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemper (US 20080277366 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Kemper discloses a rail vehicle, comprising:
a carriage body (Para.[0055], lines 1-3);
a central buffer coupling (1; Fig.2) having, as elements, a coupling head (100; Fig.2), a bar-shaped coupling shaft (90; Fig.1) and a spring mechanism (93; Fig.1), wherein said coupling head is configured for connection to further a coupling head of a further rail vehicle (100; Fig.2), wherein said coupling head is connected to a first side of said bar-shaped coupling shaft (Fig.2) and in which a second side of said bar-shaped coupling shaft dips into said spring mechanism and is mounted and fastened therein such that, in an operative mode of the rail vehicle, impact forces or tensile forces acting on said coupling head are elastically absorbed by said spring mechanism (Para.[0052]), which is connected to said carriage body of the rail vehicle, and the impact forces and the tensile forces are transmitted to said carriage body (connected through coupling to rail vehicle; Para.[0055]);
a support coupled to said bar-shaped coupling shaft and connected to said carriage body (4,3; Fig.1), said support configured to vertically support said bar-shaped coupling shaft in order to downwardly support said bar-shaped coupling shaft in a resilient manner in a vertical direction, said support further configured to bear a dead weight of said elements of said central buffer coupling in order to implement a horizontal orientation of said central buffer coupling in the operative mode of the rail vehicle (4,3; Fig.1); and
a collision element disposed between said support and said carriage body and is connected both to said support and to said carriage body (60,40,50; Fig.2), said collision element having a deformation region (41; Fig.2) configured such that kinetic energy, which is transmitted via said bar-shaped coupling shaft and via said support to said collision element in an event of a collision, non-reversibly deforms said deformation region in a predefined manner (Para.[0056]).
Regarding claim 10: Kemper further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 9, wherein: said carriage body has a front plate; said collision element has a first flange by way of which said collision element is firmly but releasably connected to said front plate of said carriage body by a screw connection (Para.[0055]); said collision element has a second flange (60; Fig.2) which lies opposite said first flange (50; Fig.2); said deformation region (41; Fig.2) is disposed between said first flange (50; Fig.2) and said second flange (60; Fig.2); said second flange is firmly but releasably connected to said support by a screw connection (Para.[0060], lines 7-10); and said screw connection of said second flange and said screw connection of said first flange are configured in such a way that an exchange of said collision element is possible after a collision (apparent from Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11: Kemper further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 9, wherein said collision element at least partially surrounds said bar-shaped coupling shaft so as to enable a horizontal movement of said bar-shaped coupling shaft to a predetermined extent (Para.[0057], lines 8-13 and Para.[0067]).
Regarding claim 12: Kemper further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 9, wherein said support at least partially surrounds said bar-shaped coupling shaft so as to enable a horizontal movement of said bar-shaped coupling shaft to a predetermined extent (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 13: Kemper further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 12, wherein due to the at least partial surrounding of said bar-shaped coupling shaft by said support, a coupling of said support to said bar-shaped coupling shaft is implemented in such a way that, in the event of the collision, said bar-shaped coupling shaft executes a longitudinal movement in a direction of the rail vehicle or in a direction of said carriage body of the rail vehicle (Fig.5c), and as a result said coupling head is pushed against said support and the kinetic energy from the collision is transmitted via said support to said collision element, in order to there trigger a deformation of said deformation region (kinetic energy transferred from coupling head to bearing block including support plate 67 to deformation tube 41; Fig.5c).
Regarding claim 14: Kemper further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 9, wherein said spring mechanism has energy dissipation elements which are configured in such a way that impact energy, which is transmitted via said bar-shaped coupling shaft to said spring mechanism in the event of the collision, irreversibly plastically deforms said energy dissipation elements for energy compensation purposes (apparent from Fig.5c).
Regarding claim 16: Kemper further discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 9, wherein said support is in a form of a beam support, which are in each case at least partially disposed under said bar-shaped coupling shaft (Fig.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper in view of Rosengren (US 0921564 A).
Regarding claim 15: Kemper teaches a rail vehicle with a central buffer coupling (1; Fig.1). Kemper does not teach the use of the coupling being part of a mixed train coupling.
However, Rosengren teaches the use of a mixed train coupling for use in a buffer coupling (Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rail vehicle of Kemper with the use of a mixed train coupling as in Rosengren since it is obvious to try identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615