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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/26/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejection of claim 1 over Theurer et al. (U.S. 5,615,615), in view of Artru et al. (U.S. 11,780,420 B2) below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer et al. (U.S. 5,615,615), in view of Artru et al. (U.S. 11,780,420 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Theurer et al. disclose a work vehicle for carrying out working operations on a track (refer to abstract), comprising;
a vehicle frame (4; figs. 1, 3, and col. 2, lines 40-45);
rail running gears (6), wherein said vehicle frame (4) can be moved on the track (3) supported on said rail running gears (6; see fig. 1),
a drive cab (35; refer to col. 3, lines 15-20) which is connected to the vehicle frame (4);
a plurality of mounted structures (“drive 18”, “lifting jackets 24”, “working aggregate 11”, “jib 12”) with assigned functions for a work operation coupled to said drive cab (35; drive unit 18, lifting jackets 24, working aggregate 11, and jib 12 all have distinct functions);
wherein the mounted structures (18, 24, 11, 12) are designed as self-supporting function modules with predefined interfaces (16, 25, 38; see fig. 1) and connected to the vehicle frame (4) and/or each other by means of threaded connections (14, 23, 26; “screw fasteners”, see col. 3, lines 37-40), wherein said predefined interfaces (16, 25, 38) are configured to enable interconnection of different function modules to said drive cab (35) and to each other (as shown in fig. 1), and wherein said predefined interfaces are configured for fastening of said function modules, with energy supply (“refer to col. 3, lines 4-12).
However, Theurer et al. is silent to enabling communication and diagnosis of the individual function modules.
Artru et al. teach a system and method for data transmission for a rail vehicle comprising a data transmission system, as shown in fig. 2 for data communication transmitted (fig. 4: via lines 51, 52, 53) to the vehicle electronics (500) for status interrogation and diagnostics (refer to col. 6, lines 19-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mechanical and electrical system of Theurer to incorporate the communication and diagnostic system of Artru, for the purpose of improving the system of Theurer by incorporating data communication and status interrogation of the mounted structures (refer to col. 6, lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 1 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein mechanical (fasteners 14, 23, 36), and electrical, and/or hydraulic (25), and/or pneumatic interfaces are predefined (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 1 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein the predefined interfaces are configured to fit to each other (via line 17; the claimed “fit” does not require any structure, therefore the claim is recited broadly).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 1 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein the vehicle frame (4) comprises two lateral longitudinal carriers (first frame section 4 supporting “5” and the other section supporting “11”. There is a gap between both frames), the upper edges of which span a vehicle floor (as shown), and in that at least one function module (18) is arranged as an underfloor module below the vehicle floor (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 5 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein the two lateral longitudinal carriers comprise [the respective longitudinal carrier comprises] a longitudinal-carrier upper flange and a longitudinal-carrier lower flange, which are connected to one another by a plurality of connecting elements arranged at equal distances from one another (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 1 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein at least one function module (10) is designed to be shiftable on guides (12 or 21, or 11, or 22) in relation to the vehicle frame (4; refer to col. 2, lines 53-60).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 8 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein the shiftable function module is fastened (via fastener 23) to an auxiliary frame (21, 22).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 1 above; Artru et al. further teach wherein a modular control software is set up in a control device, in that different function modules are assigned their own software modules, and in that the software modules are able to be enabled separately (refer to col. 8, lines 28-41 and col. 10, lines 13-23).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 1 above; Theurer et al. further disclose wherein the vehicle frame (4) is manufactured with a dimensioning adapted to selected function modules, in that each function module is initially pre-assembled as a self-supporting unit, and in that the pre-assembled function modules are bolted to the vehicle frame and/or to each other (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 13 above; Artru et al. further teach wherein the respective pre-assembled function module is put into operation before installation by means of a diagnostic device (as taught by Artru et al., refer to the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Theurer et al. and Artru et al. teach all the features of this case as applied to claim 13 above; Artru et al. further teach wherein a modular control software set up in a control device is adapted to the installed function modules (refer to col. 8, lines 28-41 and col. 10, lines 13-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 10, and 11 are 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights