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.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-19, 28, 30 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: Within claims 16-19, 28, 30 and 35: “at least first carriage” should be “at least one first carriage” as previously recited. 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 16-18 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchholz (DE 2854776 A1).
Regarding claim 16: Buchholz discloses a rail vehicle comprising: at least one first carriage (1a; Fig.2); carriage articulation device (10,2; Fig.1); and a second carriage coupled to the first carriage via the carriage articulation device (1b; Fig.2); wherein the carriage articulation device has a variable resistance to twisting of the at one least first carriage relative to the second carriage (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0020], lines 20-31); wherein a first resistance torque gradient of the carriage articulation device is greater in magnitude in cases of a first angular position of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage in one direction of rotation than a second resistance torque gradient of the carriage articulation device in cases of a second angular position of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage in the same direction of rotation; and wherein the first angular position is associated with a lesser twisting of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage than the second angular position (desired hydraulic application to drive element from electronic control unit 9 dependent upon displacement sensors; Para.[0020]).
Regarding claim 17: Buchholz further discloses the rail vehicle as claimed in claim 16, wherein a first resistance torque of the carriage articulation device in cases of the first angular position has greater magnitude than a second resistance torque of the carriage articulation device in cases of a third angular position of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage in the same direction of rotation; and wherein the first angular position is associated with a lesser twisting of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage than the third angular position (desired hydraulic application to drive element from electronic control unit 9 dependent upon displacement sensors; Para.[0020]).
Regarding claim 18: Buchholz further discloses the rail vehicle as claimed in claim 17, wherein the carriage articulation device has a maximum third resistance torque in terms of magnitude in cases of a fourth angular position of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage between the first angular position and the third angular position in the same direction of rotation (desired hydraulic application to drive element from electronic control unit 9 dependent upon displacement sensors; Para.[0020]).
Regarding claim 34: Buchholz further discloses the rail vehicle as claimed in claim 16, wherein the carriage articulation device has a carriage articulation (2; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 35: Buchholz further discloses the rail vehicle as claimed in claim 16, wherein the twisting of the at least first carriage relative to the second carriage is substantially a rotation in relation to a parallel of a vehicle vertical axis (apparent from Fig.2).
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.
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchholz in view of Moeschler (DE 19532833 C1).
Regarding claim 19: Buchholz teaches the rail vehicle as claimed in claim 16, wherein the carriage articulation device (10,2; Fig.2) includes a pivot point (2; Fig.2) and includes a first coupling element (11a; Fig.2) which is connected to the at least one first carriage (1a; Fig.2) and the second carriage (1b; Fig.2), a first normal distance between a first spring longitudinal axis of the first coupling element (11a; Fig.2) and the pivot point (2; Fig.2) being variable (apparent from Fig.2); and wherein the carriage articulation device further includes a second coupling element (11b; Fig.2) which is connected to the at least first carriage (1a; Fig.2) and the second carriage (1b; Fig.1), a second normal distance between a second coupling element (11a; Fig.2) longitudinal axis of the second coupling element and the pivot point being variable (apparent from Fig.2). Buchholz does not teach wherein the carriage articulation device including a first spring and a second spring.
However, Moeschler teaches the use of springs (3; Fig.1) within carriage articulation devices (10; Fig.8). 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 Buchholz with springs as taught within Moeschler since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20: Buchholz does not teach wherein the first and second springs are pretensioned.
However, Moeschler teaches wherein first and second springs are pretensioned (springs 3; Fig.1 of first and second units 10; Fig.8 and see attached EPO translation; Para.[0017]). 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 Buchholz with pretensioned springs as in Moeschler since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 21 and 22: Buchholz does not teach wherein the first and second springs are pretensioned.
However, Moeschler teaches wherein the first and second springs are formed as compression springs (3; Fig.1). 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 Buchholz to include compression springs since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 23-25: Buchholz does not teach wherein the first and second springs are connected in an articulated manner to the at least one first carriage and the second carriage.
However, Moeschler teaches wherein the first and second springs are connected in an articulated manner to the at least one first carriage and the second carriage (10 connected to 12 and 12'; Fig.8 via pivot eyes 6 and 6'; Fig.1). 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 Buchholz with the articulated connection of springs as taught within Moeschler since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26: Buchholz teaches a first and second coupling element formed as a damper unit (11a,11b; Fig.2). Buchholz does not teach wherein the first spring is combined with a first damper to form a first spring/damper unit and the second spring is combined with a second damper to form a second spring/damper unit.
However, Moeschler teaches first and second spring elements within a carriage articulation device (3; Fig.1 within first and second 10; Fig.8). 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 Buchholz to utilize springs in combination with the damping unit within Buchholz to provide additional damping control for rail vehicle operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27: Buchholz further teaches the rail vehicle as claimed in claim 19, wherein the first normal distance in the first angular position is greater than the second normal distance in the second angular position (apparent from desired angular positions Fig.2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-33 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 28-33. More specifically, the prior art does no teach or suggest the articulation device including the use of a curved molding on the second carriage cooperating with a first and second guide arm with a first and second roller that are coupled to the at least one first carriage in an articulated manner as claimed within claim 28. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine these limitations with the prior art as claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights