DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 7/23/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The applicant did not provide a copy of DE 19840064.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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.
Claim 1 recites “the one hand to the brake cylinder and on the other hand to the shoe holder” (Lines 4-5). The idiom “the one hand…the other hand” normally describes alternate viewpoints and does not make sense in this context. The Examiner suggests changing “hand” to --end--.
Claim 1 recites “in a parking brake configuration, a braking force applied to the wheel of the railway vehicle is a direct function of a braking force applied in a service or an emergency brake configuration” (Lines 9-11). The applicant does not describe how the parking brake, service brake or emergency brake actuators work in the written description, making it impossible to know what elements of the service and emergency brakes are incorporated into the parking brake. Even if they were, it is unclear what structures and/or functions are encompassed by the limitation “a direct function”.
Claim 1 recites “an elastic device configured to be biased by the brake cylinder” (Lines 12-13). The spring bias is the force that an elastically-deformed spring exerts against another body. The claim language inverts this, making it unclear what is required.
Claim 1 introduces “at least one shoe” (Lines 1-2). Dependent claim 8 further introduces “mounting one or more shoes” (Lines 3-4). It is unclear how many shoes are required and how they reconcile.
Claim 2 recites “an actuating rod…mechanically secured by a free end to the interface mechanism” (Lines 2-3). The “free” end of an object is unattached by definition, making it unclear what is required. It is also unclear how the rod end would function as a means for securing.
Claim 12 recites “a shoe brake railway vehicle, including a railway braking system” (Line 1). Antecedent claim 1 already introduces a railway vehicle (Line 1) and a railway braking system (Line 1). It is unclear how many vehicles and braking systems are required. It is also unclear whether the “shoe brake railway vehicle” differs from the “railway vehicle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgren (US 2014/0090936) in view of Leclerc (US 4,116,113).
As per claim 1, Lundgren discloses a railway braking system (Abstract) for a railway vehicle (Abstract) with brakes (Abstract) with at least one shoe ([0002]), including a shoe holder (4) configured to carry said at least one shoe ([0002]), a brake cylinder (1; [0028]) configured to act on at least one wheel ([0029]) of the railway vehicle via the shoe holder, and at least one force transmission link (5) mechanically secured on the one hand to the brake cylinder (5) and on the other hand to the shoe holder (5), with the railway braking system which is configured to allow the shoe holder, via the at least one force transmission link, to move in a horizontal direction and/or in a vertical direction to follow a position of the wheel to be braked on the railway vehicle ([0038]); and
in that the railway braking system includes an elastic device (21; [0044]) configured to be biased by the brake cylinder and acting directly on the shoe holder, as well as an interface mechanism (6) interposed between the brake cylinder and the elastic device and configured to also allow movement of the shoe holder, at least vertically translationally and/or pivotally, to follow a movement of the wheel to be braked of the railway vehicle ([0030]). Although Lundgren discloses wherein the brake cylinder is configured so that in a brake configuration ([0038]), a braking force applied to the wheel of the railway vehicle ([0038]), he does not disclose wherein the brake cylinder is configured so that in a parking brake configuration, a braking force applied to the wheel of the railway vehicle is a direct function of a braking force applied in a service or an emergency brake configuration.
Leclerc discloses a spring actuated brake cylinder device wherein the brake cylinder is configured so that in a parking brake configuration (Col. 3, lines 15-19), a braking force applied to the wheel of the railway vehicle is a direct function of a braking force applied in a service or an emergency brake configuration (Col. 3, lines 15-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake actuator of Lundgren by providing it with service and parking brake functions as taught by Leclerc in order to permit the driver the bring the rail vehicle to a stop and hold it in place.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 1. Lundgren further discloses wherein the brake cylinder includes a body (1; [0028]) and an actuating rod (3) movable relative to the body and which is mechanically secured by a free end to the interface mechanism (3’, Fig. 3a; [0030]).
As per claim 3, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 2. Leclerc further discloses wherein the interface mechanism includes a device for locking/unlocking (8; Col. 3, lines 44-54) the actuating rod (19) of the brake cylinder in position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake actuator of Lundgren by providing a rod-locking mechanism as taught by Leclerc in order to hold the brake in a desired position.
As per claim 4, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 1. Lundgren further discloses wherein the interface mechanism includes a main member (12) from which one or more pivot parts (12’) project laterally and from which a slide connection (12’’’) projects frontally towards the shoe holder.
As per claim 8, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 1. Lundgren further discloses wherein the elastic device and the interface mechanism are housed in a chamber (Fig. 1, 2) formed in the shoe holder, opposite a face (4) for mounting one or more shoes.
PNG
media_image2.png
453
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 9, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 8. Lundgren further discloses wherein the shoe holder is provided with one or more covers (Fig. 5) for closing the chamber.
As per claim 11, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 1. Leclerc further discloses wherein the brake cylinder includes a pneumatically and/or electrically powered actuation mechanism (Col. 1, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake actuator of Lundgren by using a pneumatic brake cylinder as taught by Leclerc in order to provide effective braking.
As per claim 12, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system according to claim 1. Lundgren further discloses a shoe brake railway vehicle (Abstract), including a railway braking system ([0002]) and which is configured to act on at least one wheel of the vehicle ([0002]).
8. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgren (US 2014/0090936) in view of Leclerc (US 4,116,113) and further in view of Mathern et al (US 2010/0258393).
As per claim 10, Lundgren and Leclerc disclose the railway braking system of claim 1. Lundgren further discloses wherein the elastic device includes an elastic blade (21; [0042]) disposed vertically, but does not disclose a plurality of elastic blades.
Mathern et al discloses a brake shoe support assembly wherein the elastic device includes a plurality of elastic blades (42; [0039]) disposed vertically against each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the cup springs of Lundgren by using a stack of at least two spring washers as taught by Mathern et al in order to improve brake shoe-centering.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose wherein the interface mechanism includes one or more connecting jumpers mounted movable in rotation around the pivot part(s), and one or more slide parts mounted to move in horizontal and/or vertical translation between the connecting jumper(s) and the elastic device.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brakes
Li et al (CN 113525447).
Morita et al (JP 2020-016302).
Asano et al (WO 2007-123018).
Stjarne (US 5,277,280).
Washbourn et al (US 4,895,228).
Case et al (US 3,874,747).
Busch (US 2,490,204).
Flesch (US 2,479,332).
Flesch (US 2,474,239).
Leggemann et al (US 1,796,605).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571)270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
STEPHEN M. BOWES IV
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights