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 1-12 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. JP2023-125875, filed on 08/01/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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 1-12 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.
The phrases “relatively lower” and “relatively higher” in claims 3-7 is indefinite because “relatively” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “speed of the railway vehicle” in claims 3-7 have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “relatively”. The examiner recommends removing the term “relatively” from the above claims.
The term “possibility” in claims 1 and 12 is a term that defines operational states based on abstract probabilistic concepts and create ambiguity. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “possibility of opening operation of the door” is indefinite because a vehicle door always has a non-zero physical or mathematical possibility of opening – whether due to a system command, a manual release, an electrical fault, or a mechanical failure. The claims fail to establish what threshold of “possibility” triggers the operating or releasing action. The examiner recommends replacing “whether or not there is a possibility of an opening operation” with an objective condition, such as “operating or releasing an electrically driven hermetic retention device… according to a signal output by an input signal detection circuit indicating an imminent opening operation of the door”. For examination purposes, “whether or not there is a possibility of an opening operation” has been construed as “whether or not there is an opening operation”.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dannemann et al. (US 20210207418 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dannemann teaches (Fig. 1-5): A controller (controller 18) configured to perform a process including: operating or releasing an electrically driven hermetic retention device (door drive 10 with electric motor and a sealing element 21 for delivering a sealing force FD; para. 0058) configured to retain airtightness between a door (door 2) and an opening (door opening 4) of a railway vehicle (through sealing element 21; Figs. 1A-1B; para. 0047), according to whether or not there is an opening operation of the door within a predetermined period (when the door is closed, airtightness is retained between the door and the opening; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 10, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to make a transition between the operating state (Fig. 2B) and the released state (Fig. 2A) by energizing the hermetic retention device (door drive 10 powered by electric motor; para. 0046), and the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to maintain the operating state or the released state by deenergizing the hermetic retention device (when door drive is deenergized, the door remains in opened or closed state; Fig. 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 11, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): acquiring information related to an operating state of the hermetic retention device (10, 21) and diagnosing an indication of abnormality of the hermetic retention device (seal temperature of seal ageing condition is monitored to determine its condition; para. 0021).
Regarding claim 12, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): A control method comprising: operating or releasing, by a controller (18), an electrically driven hermetic retention device (10, 21) for retaining airtightness between a door (2) and an opening of a railway vehicle (Figs. 2A-2B; para. 0047), according to whether or not there is an opening operation of the door within a predetermined period (when the door is closed, airtightness is retained between the door and the opening; Fig. 2B).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannemann et al. (US 20210207418 A1), in view of Salter et al. (US 10822842 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21), but does not explicitly teach that the hermetic retention device is operated or released according to a speed of the railway vehicle.
However, Salter teaches an alternate control for vehicle door sealing, wherein (Fig. 3-6): a hermetic retention device (mechanical latch 22) is operated or released according to a speed of the railway vehicle (door latch selectively activates the power cinching mode to pull the door assembly into a sub-flush condition with an increased compression of the seal based on a speed of the vehicle; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dannemann to operate or release the hermetic retention device according to a speed of the railway vehicle, as disclosed by Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing the seal compression at increased vehicle speeds would reduce the likelihood of a seal leakage caused excess vibration (Salter, col. 4, lines 29-63, claim 11).
Regarding claim 3, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to make a transition from the operating state (closed door being hermetically sealed) to the released state (Fig. 2A-2B), but does not explicitly teach that the transition from the operating state to the released state happens when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than a first threshold value.
However, Salter teaches an alternate control for vehicle door sealing, wherein (Fig. 3-6): a hermetic retention device (mechanical latch 22) can be activated (power cinching mode compressing the seal into a sub-flush condition; Fig. 6) and be released (into a flush condition; Fig. 5) when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than a first threshold value (when speed drops below the low-speed threshold) (col. 4, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dannemann to release the hermetic retention device when a speed of the railway vehicle drops below a threshold speed, as disclosed by Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success because releasing the seal compression at reduced vehicle speeds would conserve power to the hermetic retention device (Salter, col. 4, lines 29-63, claim 11).
Regarding claim 6, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to transition between the operating state (closed door being hermetically sealed) and the released state (Fig. 2A-2B), but does not explicitly teach that the transition from the released state to the operating state happens when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively higher than a second threshold value.
However, Salter teaches an alternate control for vehicle door sealing, wherein (Fig. 3-6): a hermetic retention device (mechanical latch 22) can be released (into a flush condition; Fig. 5), and be activated (power cinching mode compressing the seal into a sub-flush condition; Fig. 6) when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively higher than a second threshold value (when vehicle speed is greater than a high-speed threshold) (col. 4, lines 42-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dannemann to activate the hermetic retention device when a speed of the railway vehicle is greater than a second threshold speed, as disclosed by Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing the seal compression at increased vehicle speeds would reduce the likelihood of a seal leakage caused excess vibration (Salter, col. 4, lines 29-63, claim 11).
Regarding claim 7, the secondary reference Salter further teaches: the second threshold value (high-speed threshold) is larger than the first threshold value (low-speed threshold)(Salter, col. 4, lines 29-63).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannemann et al. (US 20210207418 A1), in view of Luo et al. (CN 109747414 B, provided).
Regarding claim 8, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to make a transition from the operating state (closed door being hermetically sealed) to the released state (Fig. 2A-2B), but does not explicitly teach that the transition from the operating state to the released state happens when the railway vehicle stops due to an emergency state.
However, Luo teaches an alternate vehicle door controller, wherein: “the controller is configured to open the door in emergency when the vehicle is stopped and the vehicle is not overturned as a result of the determination” (Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dannemann to operate a vehicle door controller to transition the door from an operating state to a released state when the vehicle stops due to an emergency state, as disclosed by Dannemann, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the vehicle to safely evacuate passengers from the railway vehicle in emergency situations.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannemann et al. (US 20210207418 A1), in view of Xiao et al. (CN 111335755 B).
Regarding claim 9, Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to make a transition from the operating state (closed door being hermetically sealed) to the released state (Fig. 2A-2B), but does not explicitly teach that the transition from the operating state to the released state happens when the railway vehicle is in a power failure state.
However, Xiao teaches an alternate vehicle door controller, wherein (Fig. 1): the vehicle door is transitioned from an operating state to a released state when the railway vehicle is in a power failure state (vehicle door is unlocked in a fault power failure condition; Xiao, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dannemann to operate a vehicle door controller to transition the door from an operating state to a released state when the vehicle is in a power failure state, as disclosed by Dannemann, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the vehicle to safely evacuate passengers from the railway vehicle in case the vehicle’s power system fails.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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 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 4, the prior art fails to teach the hermetic retention device is caused to make a transition from the operating state to the released state when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than the first threshold value and the door is located on a platform side of a station. While Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to make a transition from the operating state (closed door being hermetically sealed) to the released state (Fig. 2A-2B); and the secondary reference Salter teaches an alternate control for vehicle door sealing, wherein (Fig. 3-6): a hermetic retention device (mechanical latch 22) can be activated (power cinching mode compressing the seal into a sub-flush condition; Fig. 6) and be released (into a flush condition; Fig. 5) when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than a first threshold value (when speed drops below the low-speed threshold)(col. 4, lines 58-63), the examiner finds no obvious reason to release the hermetic retention device when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than the first threshold value when the door is located on a platform side of a station.
It is noted that Salter’s vehicle sealing system is not designed for a rail vehicle. Modifying Salter’s vehicle sealing system to release a hermetic retention device when the door is located on a platform side of a station would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to teach the hermetic retention device is caused to make a transition from the operating state to the released state when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than the first threshold value and the railway vehicle is located between stations. While Dannemann further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the hermetic retention device (10, 21) is caused to make a transition from the operating state (closed door being hermetically sealed) to the released state (Fig. 2A-2B); and the secondary reference Salter teaches an alternate control for vehicle door sealing, wherein (Fig. 3-6): a hermetic retention device (mechanical latch 22) can be activated (power cinching mode compressing the seal into a sub-flush condition; Fig. 6) and be released (into a flush condition; Fig. 5) when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than a first threshold value (when speed drops below the low-speed threshold)(col. 4, lines 58-63), the examiner finds no obvious reason to release the hermetic retention device when the speed of the railway vehicle becomes relatively lower than the first threshold value when the railway vehicle is located between stations.
It is noted that Salter’s vehicle sealing system is not designed for a rail vehicle. Modifying Salter’s vehicle sealing system to release a hermetic retention device when the railway vehicle is located between stations 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 of a vehicle door hermetic retention device controller: US-20200156669-A1, US-10982482-B2, US-11077870-B2, US-20240151090-A1, US-12116820-B2, US-12123244-B2, CN 114033264 A, WO 2013183699 A1, CN 102303618 A, EP 2371653 A2, JP 2002067940 A, EP 0900708 A1, JP 09011895 A
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