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 .
Drawings
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 joining elements recited in claim 3 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 Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, which depend from claim 5, recites “wherein the respective longitudinal carrier comprises” but should read -- wherein the two lateral longitudinal carriers comprises -- for consistency.
In claim 12, lines 4-5, “are able be enabled separately” should read -- are ablet to be enabled separately --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 1: claim 1 recites that the “mounting structures are designed as self-supporting function modules”. Examiner is unclear as to what “self-supporting function module” require. What is a self-supporting function? For examination purpose, it would be assumed that any rail module that performs any type of function is self-supporting.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 4: in claim 4, it is unclear what is required by a “unique geometric fit”. What makes the shape a unit geometric fit? For examination purposes, it would be assumed that any shaped will be a unit geometric fit.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (U.S. 2022/0042250A1), in view of Clow et al. (U.S. 9,527,422 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid discloses a work vehicle (2, 8, fig. 1 and para 0046) for carrying out working operations on a track (“rail 6”; fig. 1 and para 0046), comprising
a vehicle frame (4) which can be moved on the track (7, fig. 2) supported on rail running gears (5; refer to para 0046),
a drive cab (1 or SH) which is connected to the vehicle frame (4), and
various mounted structures (10, 11) with assigned functions for a work operation (refer to para 0047-0060; the function modules is the robot 17 and its associated parts/tools), wherein the mounted structures (10, 11) are designed as self-supporting function modules (refer to para 0047-0060; the processing system 3 and its associated tools such as displacement device 18, robot 17, and energy generator 26 are designed as self-supporting. See the 112b rejection made above) with predefined interfaces (28, 29 or 21, 25; examiner notes that “interfaces” is claimed broadly) and connected to the vehicle frame (4) and/or each other by means of fastening connections (“fastening elements 19”; refer to para 0048).
However, Schmid is silent to the fastening connection being threaded connections.
Clow et al. generally teach that it is known to use threaded connection comprising threaded fasteners to connect elements/structures together (see fig. 8 and refer to col. 4, lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of fastener for another to achieve the predictable result of securing the mounted structures to the vehicle frame.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses mechanical, and electrical, and/or hydraulic, and/or pneumatic interfaces are predefined (para 0055: the interfaces 28, 29 are electrically and mechanically connected via supply line 30).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses the predefined interfaces (21, 25) comprise joining elements (see figs. 1 and 3) which enable an adjustment of the respective function module (17), in particular, in two directions orthogonal to each other (see figs. 1 and 3 showing adjustment and translation of 21 and 25).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses the predefined interfaces (28, 29) comprise joining elements that have a unique geometric fit to each other (examiner notes that “joining elements” is recited broadly and there is no specific structure with regards to the shape other than “unique geometric fit”. Interfaces 28 and 29 are connected by supply line 30. The mechanical connection involved between 28, 29, and 30 defines a “unique geometric fit” that allows them to connect to each other. Also see the 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses wherein the vehicle frame comprises two lateral longitudinal carriers (first lateral longitudinal carrier is the frame on which vehicle section “8” seats and the second lateral longitudinal carrier is the frame on which enclosure 11 seats), the upper edges of which span a vehicle floor (the four edges of the frame span a floor), and in that at least one function module is arranged as an underfloor module below the vehicle floor (as broadly claimed, the at least one function module can be the frame holding the wheels 5 as shown in fig. 2; it can also be the structure mounted underneath the frame in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Schmid further discloses wherein the respective longitudinal carrier comprises a longitudinal-carrier upper flange (see annotated fig. 2 below) and a longitudinal-carrier lower flange (see annotated fig. 2 below), which are connected to one another by a plurality of connecting elements (see annotated fig. 2 below) arranged at equal distances from one another (see fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Schmid further discloses wherein an underfloor module (fig. 2 and para 0047 SU) is designed as a traction module and in that the traction module (14) comprises an internal combustion engine (26, para 0054: “a power unit have a drive operable by means of fuel”) coupled to a generator (refer to para 0026).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses wherein at least one function module (robot 17) is designed to be shiftable on guides in relation to the vehicle frame (see figs. 1 and 3 showing robot 17 shifting from one position to another).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 8 above; Schmid further discloses wherein the shiftable function module (robot 17) is fastened to an auxiliary frame (21, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses wherein the vehicle frame is divided into three sections (sections on which 8, 10 and 11 are located) in the longitudinal direction (as shown in fig. 1), in that the drive cab (1 or SH) is arranged on one end section (right send section, see fig. 1), in that a crane module or a further cab (8) is arranged on the other end section (as shown in fig. 1), and in that further function modules (11, 26) are set up on the middle section (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses wherein an assembly space (see annotated fig. 6 below) for the assembly of the function modules (ass the modules inside 1), which is predefined by the dimensions of the vehicle frame (as shown in fig. 6) and by a clearance gauge to be maintained, is divided into a plurality of segments in the vertical direction (Z), in the longitudinal direction (X), and in the transverse direction (Y; also, changer slide 25 can be used as an assembly space).
PNG
media_image2.png
538
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses a modular control software (fig. 1 and para 0056: “control unit 24”) is set up in a control device (3), in that different function modules are assigned their own software modules, and in that the software modules are able be (the phrase “able to be” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02) enabled separately (para 0089: “the processing system includes sensors and a controller suitable for moving the multi-axis robot”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Schmid further discloses the vehicle frame is manufactured with a dimensioning adapted to selected function modules (the phrase “adapted to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02), 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 (1) and/or to each other (as shown in fig. 1. Also see fastening elements 19 used to fasten the assembly to the frame; refer to para 0048).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 13 above; Schmid further discloses a method wherein a modular control software (fig. 1 and para 0056: “control unit 24”) set up in a control device (3) is adapted to the installed function modules (refer to para 0056 and 0062).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (U.S. 2022/0042250A1), in view of Clow et al. (U.S. 9,527,422 B1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Stadie et al. (U.S. 2019/0054932A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schmid and Clow et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 13 above; Schmid further discloses wherein the respective pre-assembled function module is put into operation before installation (when it is manufactured, it will be in operating condition before mounted to the train. In other words, defective modules will not be installed on the train).
However, Schmid, as modified by Clow et al., fail to teach a diagnostic device.
Stadie et al. teach the use of a service device that allow a system operator to diagnose faults with robotic systems (refer to para 0042).
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 system of Schmid to include a diagnostic device, as taught by Stadie et al., for allowing an operator to diagnose faults with the robot in the function module (refer to para 0042)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schimmeyer (U.S. 4,386,880) and (U.S. 3,252,430).
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