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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 129 051.1, filed on 11/09/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 are objected for reciting the term “stabilisation”. This term does not conform with American English standards. For examination purposes, the term “stabilisation” has been construed as “stabilization”.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “perpendicular to this” in line 9. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to by the term “this”. For examination purposes, the term “this” has been construed as “the first guiding direction”.
Claim 1 recites the term “it” in line 13. It is unclear what the application is referring to. For examination purposes, the term “it” has been construed as “the first cable section”.
Claims 2-21 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the respective stabilization element” in line 3. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, “the respective stabilization element” has been construed as “a stabilization element”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “perpendicular to this” in line 6. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to by the term “this”. For examination purposes, the term “this” has been construed as “the second guiding direction”.
Claim 16 recites the term “it” in line 10. It is unclear what the application is referring to. For examination purposes, the term “it” has been construed as “the second cable section”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaskiewicz (US 20200239045 A1), in view of Brueggen et al. (US 20190016351 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jaskiewicz teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): Cable guide assembly for a vehicle, in particular a rail vehicle (train cars 1, 3), for guiding at least one cable (flexible cable 25) from a first vehicle part (1) to a second vehicle part (3) which is coupled to the first vehicle part (para. 0025), having: a first stabilization device (cable holder arrangement 37), which can be mounted on the first vehicle part (1)(Fig. 1).
Jaskiewicz does not explicitly teach that the first vehicle part (1) and the second vehicle part (3) are coupled articulately.
However, Brueggen teaches an alternate cable guide assembly for a rail vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1-3): a first vehicle part (11) and the second vehicle part (12) are coupled articulately (para. 0015).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Jaskiewicz to couple the two vehicle parts with an articulate coupling, as disclosed by Brueggen, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce lateral stress on the tracks, allowing the trains to handle curves faster while delivering a notably smoother, safer passenger ride.
Jaskiewicz teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): a sliding collar (41) capable of holding the at least one flexible cable (25) in a slidable manner and therefore allows the cable (25) to move in one guide direction and blocks the cable in a perpendicular direction (para. 0032, 0034 and 0064), but does not explicitly teach that the first stabilization device (37) is formed to be deformable in a first guiding direction and rigid perpendicular to the first guiding direction; wherein the first stabilization device coupled to a first cable section of the cable in such a way that the deformability of the first stabilization device permits movement of the first cable section in the first guiding direction and blocks the first cable section perpendicular thereto.
However, Brueggen further teaches (Fig. 1-3): a flexible cable (line 30) has a first stabilization device (cable guiding device 50) that is formed to be deformable in a first guiding direction (mobility within plane E; para. 0039) and rigid perpendicular to the first guiding direction (stiff in the plane perpendicular to the guiding plane E; para. 0039; Fig. 3); wherein the first stabilization device (50) is coupled to a first cable section of the cable (30) in such a way that the deformability of the first stabilization device permits movement of the first cable section in the first guiding direction (a direction in the plane E) and blocks the first cable section perpendicular thereto (para. 0039; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Jaskiewicz to modify the sliding collar into a deformable stabilization device for the flexible cable such that a cable section is movable in a first guiding direction and blocked in a second direction perpendicular to the first, as disclosed by Brueggen, with a reasonable expectation of success because the cable stabilization device would serve in “preventing a flexible line drooping down in a dangerous manner in the gap area between the coach bodies, by which the line becomes trapped between moving parts” (Brueggen, para. 0006).
Regarding claim 5, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the first stabilization device (37) has a base element (wear plate 39) which is provided to be connected fixedly to the respective vehicle part (1, 3)(Fig. 1 and 17; para. 0031).
Regarding claim 6, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the stabilization device (37) has a guide element (41), which is mounted by means of a respective stabilization element (holding member 81) on the base element (wear plate 39)(Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 7, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the first cable section (25) is arranged between the base element (39) and the guide element (41) of the first stabilization device (37)(Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 8, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the first stabilization device (37) has at least one holding element (41), which supports the cable (25) in the stabilization device (Fig. 1 and 17).
Regarding claim 9, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the holding element (41) connects the cable (25) fixedly to the stabilization device (37)(Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 10, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the holding element (41) permits movement of the cable (25) relative to the stabilization device (37) in a longitudinal direction of the cable (movement parallel with top wall 75; para. 0064; Fig. 17) and/or rotation of the cable about a longitudinal direction of the cable relative to the stabilization device (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 11, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the holding element (41) has an interior region which supports the cable (25)(Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jaskiewicz and Brueggen further teaches: a longitudinal axis of the first cable section (cable section 25 of Jaskiewicz) is arranged substantially perpendicular to the first guiding direction (movement direction of the links in plane E; Brueggen, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the cable (25) is an electric cable (Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): a second stabilization device (37), which can be mounted on the second vehicle part (3); wherein the second stabilization device (37) is coupled to a second cable section of the cable (25); and a sliding collar (41) capable of holding the at least one flexible cable (25) in a slidable manner and therefore allows the cable (25) to move in one guide direction and blocks the cable in a perpendicular direction (para. 0032, 0034 and 0064),
Jaskiewicz does not explicitly teach that the second stabilization device formed to be deformable in a second guiding direction and is formed rigid perpendicular to this, wherein the deformability of the second stabilization device permits movement of the second cable section in the second guiding direction and blocks the second cable section perpendicular thereto.
However, Brueggen further teaches (Fig. 1-3): a flexible cable (line 30) has a stabilization device (cable guiding device 50) that is formed to be deformable in a guiding direction (mobility within plane E; para. 0039) and rigid perpendicular to the guiding direction (stiff in the plane perpendicular to the guiding plane E; para. 0039; Fig. 3); wherein the stabilization device (50) is coupled to a cable section of the cable (30) in such a way that the deformability of the stabilization device permits movement of the cable section in the guiding direction (a direction in the plane E) and blocks the cable section perpendicular thereto (para. 0039; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Jaskiewicz to modify the second sliding collar into a deformable stabilization device for the flexible cable such that a cable section is movable in a second guiding direction and blocked in a direction perpendicular thereto, as disclosed by Brueggen, with a reasonable expectation of success because the cable stabilization device would serve in “preventing a flexible line drooping down in a dangerous manner in the gap area between the coach bodies, by which the line becomes trapped between moving parts” (Brueggen, para. 0006).
Regarding claim 17, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): a free cable section of the cable (25) links the first and the second stabilization device (37) to one another (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): Vehicle (train), having a first vehicle part (1), a second vehicle part (3), which is coupled in an articulated manner to the first vehicle part (taught by the combination; see rejection of claim 1 above), and at least one cable guide assembly according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); wherein the first stabilization device is arranged on the first vehicle part (Fig. 1), and wherein the cable (25) leads from the first vehicle part to the second vehicle part (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): Vehicle (train), having a first vehicle part (1), a second vehicle part (3), which is coupled in an articulated manner to the first vehicle part (taught by the combination; see rejection of claim 1 above), and at least one cable guide assembly according to claim 16 (see claim 16 above); wherein the first stabilization device (37) is arranged on the first vehicle part (1) and the second stabilization device (37) is arranged on the second vehicle part (3)(Fig. 1), and wherein the cable (25) leads from the first vehicle part to the second vehicle part (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): the first stabilization device (37) is arranged in such a way on the first vehicle part (1) and the second stabilization device (37) is arranged in such a way on the second vehicle part (3) that in a neutral position of the two vehicle parts relative to one another (Fig. 1), a longitudinal axis of the first cable section (25) encloses with a longitudinal axis of the second cable section (25) an angle, preferably in the range of 45 to 135 degrees, particularly preferably of substantially 90 degrees (two cable sections are arranged at an angle relative to one another; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Jaskiewicz further teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): Vehicle according to claim 18 (see claim 18 above), wherein vehicle parts (1, 3) are linked to one another rotatably about a rotation axis (combination of Jaskiewicz and Brueggen teaches articulated coupling) and the rotation axis (articulated joint of a railway vehicle is well known to have a vertical axis of rotation; see DE 102010011903 A1, Figs. 1-2, provided by examiner) is arranged substantially perpendicular to the first guiding direction and/or second guiding direction (Brueggen, Figs. 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 12 and 14 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 claims and if all claim objections and rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2 and its depending claim(s) 3-4 and 14, the prior art fails to teach the stabilization device has at least one stabilization element, which determines the deformability of the stabilization device. While Jaskiewicz teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): Cable guide assembly for a vehicle, having: a first stabilization device (cable holder arrangement 37), which can be mounted on the first vehicle part (1)(Fig. 1); and the secondary reference Brueggen further teaches (Fig. 1-3): a flexible cable (line 30) has a first stabilization device (cable guiding device 50) that can be deformed (mobility within plane E; para. 0039), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the combination of Jaskiewicz and Brueggen to further include at least one stabilization element, which determines the deformability of the stabilization device. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach the first stabilization device has a first such holding element, which supports the cable in its base element and/or has a second such holding element, which supports the cable in its guide element. While Jaskiewicz teaches (Fig. 1 and 17): Cable guide assembly for a vehicle, having: a first stabilization device (cable holder arrangement 37) with at least one holding element (41), which supports the cable (25) its base element (39)(Fig. 1 and 17); and the secondary reference Brueggen teaches (Fig. 1-3): a flexible cable (line 30) has a first stabilization device (cable guiding device 50) that can be deformed (mobility within plane E; para. 0039), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the combination of Jaskiewicz and Brueggen to further include a second such holding element, which supports the cable in a guide element. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20080121425-A1, US-20110247850-A1, US-20130203289-A1, JP-04100775-A, CN-101290040-A, DE-102010011903-A1, DE-102014013845-A1, EP-3067245-A1, CN-110504654-A, WO-2020201616-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights