DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2a,2b should be labeled as “Prior Art”.
In figure 1 it is unclear specifically what element numeral 13 references. Applicants call this a ‘track rod’ in the specification and claims but this element appears to be more of a frame member. See for instance similar members 12A,12B in EP 3,403,897.
In figures 3A,3B where is the ‘track rod’ 13? The damping element 23 should be shaded with dark cross-hatched lines. See the rubber/elastomeric elements in the prior art of record.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “… damping means 23 is arranged between the track rod 13 and the center means 17, as claimed on the last lines of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8,10-15,20-22,24-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention..
Claim 1 line 4 applicants limitation of a ‘track rod’ (13) is not understood from the specification and/or drawings. It appears element 13 is a frame member of the rail vehicle/magnet assembly. See for instance similar members 12A,12B in EP 3,403,897.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8,10,20-22,24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,403,897 B1 in view of Katzer 3,940,185 and Schmied 3,958,669 or Jansson et al. 1,823,429.
Regarding claim 1, subject to the drawing and 112 1st objections/rejections above, and as best understood, EP ‘897 shows a running gear for a rail vehicle structured similar to that of applicant’s as readily apparent from figure 1. The magnetic rail brake is shown at 10 with the lifting devices shown at 18. As best understood the ‘track rod’ is shown at either 12A or 12B. Electromagnets are shown at 16 which inherently would have coils therewith, and capable of functioning as claimed.
Although there appears to be centering devices shown—best seen on the right side of figure 1 and to the right of the jacks 18-- these are not labeled.
The reference to Katzer shows a centering device of the type shown in the prior art of figures 2A,2B in applicant’s drawings. Note the centering device at 4, the fastening element at 6 and the magnet/track rod at 5. A damping element is shown at 4e. This element could be used/substituted for the ones in EP ‘897.
The references to either Schmied or to Jansson show it is notoriously well known in the art to simply place damping elements between structural members that come into contact and that could contribute to unwanted noise and/or vibrations. See 4 and 9 in Schmied and note element 17 therebetween. In Jansson note element 13 between members 7 and 8.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that elements—not labeled—but to the right of jacks 18 in EP ‘897 are in fact ‘centering devices’ due to their similar construction with those of Katzer or in the prior art of applicant’s figures 2A,2B. To have placed a damping element of some kind in a centering device of the type shown in EP ‘897 (or Katzer) between the ‘track rod’ 12A,12B in EP ‘897 (or element 5 in Katzer) and the centering means 6a (see Katzer) as taught by either Schmied or Jansson, would have been obvious for the reasons above.
Regarding claims 2, as readily apparent from figures 1 of EP ‘897 and Katzer 1a these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 3 to have used a ‘polymer’ of some type for the damping element would have been an obvious choice of well known damping materials dependent upon such well known factors as damping capability, material durability, and costs.
Regarding claim 4 these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 5 note that Katzer shows no damping element between elements 4a and 6a.
Regarding claim 6 as readily apparent from the figures of Katzer these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 7 since the EP ‘897 as modified by Katzer and Schmied or Jansson includes a damping element w/polymer these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 8 as readily apparent from the figures of Katzer these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 10 note the head 6f of the fastener is arranged in a ‘receptacle’ at 4b.
Regarding claims 20,26 it would have been obvious to have tightened the fastener arrangement a 6 with a pre-tensioning force of less than 75kN on the centering means 4+ in Katzer simply dependent upon the necessary force to resist joint separation and the likelihood of loosening under operational loads on the rail brake.
Regarding claims 21,22,25 these limitations are met by EP ‘897, as modified above, and as readily apparent from the figures.
Regarding claim 24 these limitations are simply dimensional requirements and would be obvious to have chosen these dimensions in the centering device of Katzer dependent upon the specific running gear/rail brake to be used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
4/26/26
Prosecution Insights