DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 07/29/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filled on 07/29/2024 is recognized.
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 01/31/2022 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/29/2024 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recite “… a number of individual tongues separated by slots …”, is not clear if slots, is the same as “slots” mentioned in claim 1 or is a different slots.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claim 1 recites “ …. a safety ring in the form of a rotationally symmetric component …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “ …. a safety ring in the form of a rotationally symmetric component …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “ …. a slanting angle towards the center axis of the ring …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “ …. a disc-shaped counterpressure means in the housing is pre-tensioned towards the ring …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “ …. wherein the thickness of the shear flange…”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite. Claim 12 depends on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “ …. can be bolted directly to the rear face of a bracket…”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite. Claim 14 depends on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “ …. to be pretensioned in close contact between the bevel…”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eliasson (US 2018/0208007) in view of Roberts (US 2008/0264627).
Regarding claim 1, Eliasson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A shear-off device for a train coupler, the shear-off device comprising a safety ring in the form of a rotationally symmetric component (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], [0036]-[0039], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, vehicle coupler for railway cars whit release mechanism in coupler assembly (i.e., shear-off device). Shear ring 130 is an annular ring (i.e., safety ring). “the shear ring comprises: a first annular end abutting a corresponding annular shoulder arranged in an interior of the housing; and a second annular end …”, (i.e., rotationally). having a cylindrical web portion defined by an outer periphery and an inner periphery in concentric relation about a center axis, (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, annular ring inherently has inner and outer annular sections 132, 134 and operates about the coupler axis).
wherein the inner periphery is formed with a thread in an open first or forward end of the safety ring, (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, teaches threaded plug nut 135, and threaded connection 137). wherein in an opposite second or rear end of the safety ring a shear flange is formed, (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, intermediate section 133 of shear ring is specifically designed to shear).
Eliasson does not explicitly disclose:
the shear flange reaching in radial direction from the inner periphery of the safety ring towards the center axis,
the shear flange having a flange base adjoining the inner periphery,
and a flange end reaching radially inside of the inner periphery, wherein characterized in that the shear flange is divided into sections separated by slots that extend in radial direction from the flange end towards the flange base.
However, Roberts teaches:
the shear flange reaching in radial direction from the inner periphery of the safety ring towards the center axis, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, frangible ring includes inward facing ring and fractures).
the shear flange having a flange base adjoining the inner periphery, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, frangible sections connected to ring body at circumferential base).
and a flange end reaching radially inside of the inner periphery, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, teaches inwardly extending frangible portions).
wherein characterized in that the shear flange is divided into sections separated by slots that extend in radial direction from the flange end towards the flange base. (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, frangible ring 410/510/610/710 splits into individual slip segments 414/514/614/714 (i.e., divided into sections). Slots 411 and 611 circumferentially around the ring (i.e., separated by slots) where slots define segmented ring portions and extend inward from the ring circumference. Shows separation regions between adjacent ring segments, and radially extending separation between adjacent frangible sections).
Eliasson and Roberts are combinable, because both are from the same field of mechanical energy absorption. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shear flange and shear ring of Eliasson, using the segmented ring as taught by Ziegler, in order to improve energy absorption during overload conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Eliasson discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein the safety ring is adapted for threaded engagement with a rear end of a cylindrical housing of an energy dissipation assembly, the housing in a forward end connectable to a rear face of a bracket for a pivot bearing, in alignment with a passage through the bracket for retraction of the pivot bearing in case of collision, and wherein a disc-shaped counterpressure means in the housing is pre-tensioned towards the ring such that a bevelled periphery of the counterpressure means bears against forward slanting faces of the shear flange sections. (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], [0036]-[0039], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, safety ring 130 is threadedly mounted to the associated housing through thread connection 137. Also teaches a train coupler energy absorption including the coupler release mechanism. coupler release mechanism permits controlled release with excessive collision loads).
Regarding claim 14, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Eliasson discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein the safety ring is adapted for threaded engagement with a mounting ring which by means of bolts can be bolted directly to the rear face of a bracket for a pivot bearing, in alignment with a passage through the bracket for retraction of the pivot bearing in case of shear-off, to which purpose bolt passages are formed in the outer periphery of the safety ring. (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], [0036]-[0039], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, safety ring 130 is retained by thread connection 137, and is mounted within the coupler assembly through associated annular mounting. The coupler supports structure including bracket 111 and bearing mounting components that secure the coupler to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Eliasson discloses the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
A shear-off assembly for a train coupler, comprising a shear-off device, the shear-off device comprising a safety ring in the form of a rotationally symmetric component (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], [0036]-[0039], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, vehicle coupler for railway cars whit release mechanism in coupler assembly (i.e., shear-off device). Shear ring 130 is an annular ring (i.e., safety ring). “the shear ring comprises: a first annular end abutting a corresponding annular shoulder arranged in an interior of the housing; and a second annular end …”, (i.e., rotationally). having a cylindrical web portion defined by an outer periphery and an inner periphery in concentric relation about a center axis, (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, annular ring inherently has inner and outer annular sections 132, 134 and operates about the coupler axis).
wherein the inner periphery is formed with a thread in an open first or forward end of the safety ring, (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, teaches threaded plug nut 135, and threaded connection 137). wherein in an opposite second or rear end of the safety ring a shear flange is formed, (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, intermediate section 133 of shear ring is specifically designed to shear).
wherein a disc-shaped counterpressure means is formed with a bevelled periphery that is adapted angularly to be pretensioned in close contact between the bevel of the counterpressure means and forward-facing sides of the shear flange sections. (Eliasson, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1A-B, 2-3, 4-7C, teaches shear ring environment, shear elements, and preloading of the release structure (a preload mechanism, housing assembly 140, and creating a resulting preload force, …..)).
Eliasson does not explicitly disclose:
the shear flange reaching in radial direction from the inner periphery of the safety ring towards the center axis,
the shear flange having a flange base adjoining the inner periphery,
and a flange end reaching radially inside of the inner periphery, wherein the shear flange is divided into sections separated by slots that extend in radial direction from the flange end towards the flange base,
wherein a disc-shaped counterpressure means is formed with a bevelled periphery that is adapted angularly to be pretensioned in close contact between the bevel of the counterpressure means and forward-facing sides of the shear flange sections.
However, Roberts teaches:
the shear flange reaching in radial direction from the inner periphery of the safety ring towards the center axis, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, frangible ring includes inward facing ring and fractures).
the shear flange having a flange base adjoining the inner periphery, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, frangible sections connected to ring body at circumferential base).
and a flange end reaching radially inside of the inner periphery, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, teaches inwardly extending frangible portions).
wherein the shear flange is divided into sections separated by slots that extend in radial direction from the flange end towards the flange base, (Roberts, Paras. [0016]-[0018], [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, frangible ring 410/510/610/710 splits into individual slip segments 414/514/614/714 (i.e., divided into sections). Slots 411 and 611 circumferentially around the ring (i.e., separated by slots) where slots define segmented ring portions and extend inward from the ring circumference. Shows separation regions between adjacent ring segments, and radially extending separation between adjacent frangible sections).
wherein a disc-shaped counterpressure means is formed with a bevelled periphery that is adapted angularly to be pretensioned in close contact between the bevel of the counterpressure means and forward-facing sides of the shear flange sections. (Roberts, Paras. [0043]-[0055], and Figs. 1A-B, 4-7C, and claims 1, 11-12, “… castellations 421 act to wedge into slots 411 of frangible ring 410 when …” (angular engagement between members), “Cone 630 has a tapered outer surface 631 configured to engage an inner surface of second end 613 of frangible ring 610” (i.e., beveled periphery), “… the axial force from expansion ring 720 forces slip segments 714 to move in an axial direction and engage an outer surface of cone 730” (contact with segmented sections)).
Eliasson and Roberts are combinable, because both are from the same field of mechanical energy absorption. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shear flange and shear ring of Eliasson, using the segmented ring as taught by Ziegler, in order to improve energy absorption during overload conditions.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eliasson (US 2018/0208007) in view of Roberts (US 2008/0264627), and further in view of Schall (US 5,649,780).
Regarding claim 2, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim1. Schall discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein the shear flange comprises a number of individual tongues separated by slots and extending rearward at a slanting angle towards the center axis of the safety ring, from a tongue base at the inner periphery to a tongue point protruding in the rearward direction beyond the rear end of the safety ring. (Schall, Col. 3, ll. 37-64, Col. 4, ll. 28-59, Col. 5, ll. 1-10, and claims 1-2, “The right-hand end of inner collet member 22 is provided with a plurality of resilient fingers 22e integral with the main body of member 22 and extending toward the right, as shown in FIG. 2”, “The fingers are spaced from one another by elongated slots 22f,….”, where fingers 22e are integral with the main body of the annular collet member 22, establishing a base portion from the fingers extending toward the free end of the collet and terminate as distal ends surrounded by the outer collet member. “… the tapered region 24d which urges the fingers 22e radially inwardly and toward the outer periphery of smaller …” during tightening.).
Eliasson, Roberts and Schall are combinable, because all are from the same field of mechanical load transmitting structures. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teaching of sections separated by slots as taught by Schall, in order to improve controlled deformation, and predictable loading.
Regarding claim 3, Eliasson, Roberts and Schall disclose the limitations of claim 2. Eliasson, Roberts and Schall disclose:
The shear-off device of claim 2, wherein tongue bases are connected to a flange base facing forward and inwards at a slanting angle towards the center axis of the ring. (Schall, Col. 3, ll. 1-6, Col. 3, ll. 19-32, Col. 3, ll. 37-64, Col. 4, ll. 28-59, Col. 5, ll. 1-10, and claims 1-2, the resilient fingers 22e are integral with the main body of member 22, therefore, connecting each finger base to the annular body portion. The tapered portion 24d engages the fingers and urges the fingers radially inward toward the axis, and forms an inclined surface acting on fingers 22e, which results in inward movement toward the axis L of the assembly).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 2 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Eliasson, Roberts and Schall disclose the limitations of claims 2-3. Schall discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 3, wherein the tongue bases connect to the flange base via a transition region of reduced wall thickness. (Schall, Col. 3, ll. 1-6, Col. 3, ll. 19-32, Col. 3, ll. 37-64, Col. 4, ll. 28-59, Col. 5, ll. 1-10, and claims 1-2, “The right-hand end of inner collet member 22 is provided with a plurality of resilient fingers 22e integral with the main body of member 22 and extending toward the right, as shown in FIG. 2”, “The fingers are spaced from one another by elongated slots 22f,….”, the plurality of resilient fingers 22e extend from and are integral with the inner collet member 22. Fingers 22e, are formed integrally with the annular body of inner collet member 22 establishing a connection between the finger base and the body. The recesses 22g reduce material in the finger root area causing flexing).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 2 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Eliasson, Roberts and Schall disclose the limitations of claims 2-3. Schall disclose:
The shear-off device of claim 3, wherein the flange base adjoins the inner periphery at an angle of about 110* to about 150* in relation to the inner periphery of the safety ring. (Schall, Col. 3, ll. 1-6, Col. 3, ll. 19-32, Col. 3, ll. 37-64, Col. 4, ll. 28-59, Col. 5, ll. 1-10, and claims 1-2, “The right-hand end of inner collet member 22 is provided with a plurality of resilient fingers 22e integral with the main body of member 22 and extending toward the right, as shown in FIG. 2”, “The fingers are spaced from one another by elongated slots 22f,….”. teaches an annular inner collet member 22 defining a central bore and having plurality of resilient fingers 22e integral with the main body of the collet member).
Please note that: The claimed ranges, represents a result of variable performance depending on requirements of the system, and it would have been obvious matter of design choice.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 2 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Eliasson, Roberts and Schall disclose the limitations of claims 2-3. Schall disclose:
The shear-off device of claim 4, wherein a transition region between the flange base and the inner periphery is formed with a radius. (Schall, Col. 3, ll. 1-6, Col. 3, ll. 19-32, Col. 3, ll. 37-64, Col. 4, ll. 28-59, Col. 5, ll. 1-10, and claims 1-2, the finger roots are located where resilient fingers 22e merge to the annular body of inner collet member 22. “each finger is provided with a recess 22g …”).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 2 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Eliasson, Roberts and Schall disclose the limitations of claims 2-3. Schall disclose:
The shear-off device of claim 2, wherein the slots between adjacent tongues are formed with a radius at the tongue base. (Schall, Col. 3, ll. 1-6, Col. 3, ll. 19-32, Col. 3, ll. 37-64, Col. 4, ll. 28-59, Col. 5, ll. 1-10, and claims 1-2, the resilient fingers 22e are separated from one another by elongated slots 22f. recesses 22g are provided at the finger root adjacent the slots).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 2 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claims 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eliasson (US 2018/0208007) in view of Roberts (US 2008/0264627), and further in view of Daghe (US 4,717,178).
Regarding claim 8, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Daghe discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein an indication of fracture is formed in the safety ring where the base of the shear flange adjoins the inner periphery. (Daghe, Col. 2, ll. 52-67, Figs. 4-5, “The ring 34 has a circular coaxial weakening groove 40 in its upper face spaced …” (i.e., indication of fracture)).
Eliasson, Roberts and Daghe are combinable, because all are from the same field of mechanical structure incorporating frangible load members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teaching of weakening grooves as taught by Daghe to the shear-off structure, in order to enhance protection of surrounding components during overload events.
Regarding claim 9, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Daghe discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein an indication of fracture is formed in the rear end of the safety ring. (Daghe, Col. 2, ll. 52-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-24, Figs. 4-5, “The improved ring 34 has another groove 42 in its other or lower face.” (i.e., formed in the rear end). Groove 42 is formed on the opposite face of the ring, corresponding to a fracture indication on the rear side of the ring).
Eliasson, Roberts and Daghe are combinable, because all are from the same field of mechanical structure incorporating frangible load members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teaching of weakening grooves as taught by Daghe to the shear-off structure, in order to enhance protection of surrounding components during overload events.
Regarding claim 10, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Daghe discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 8, wherein the indication of fracture is a continuous circular recess with a rounded sectional profile. (Daghe, Col. 2, ll. 52-68, Col. 3, ll. 1-24, Figs. 4-5, “… the groove has sides that are straight in radial section and a concavely curved bottom…” (i.e., formed in the rear end). Groove 42 is formed on the opposite face of the ring, corresponding to a fracture indication on the rear side of the ring).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 8 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Daghe discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the shear flange is reducing from the flange base towards the flange end. (Daghe, Col. 2, ll. 52-68, Col. 3, ll. 1-24, Figs. 4-5, frangible ring 34 includes overlapping grooves 40 and 42 on the opposite face of the ring. The overlapping grooves create a frangible section having a reduced remaining material thickness across the width of the ring which teaches a shear flange having a thickness that decreases from a base).
Eliasson, Roberts and Daghe are combinable, because all are from the same field of mechanical structure incorporating frangible load members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teaching of weakening grooves as taught by Daghe to the shear-off structure, in order to enhance protection of surrounding components during overload events.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eliasson (US 2018/0208007) in view of Roberts (US 2008/0264627), and further in view of Christianson (US 3,672,704).
Regarding claim 11, Eliasson and Roberts disclose the limitations of claim 1. Christianson discloses:
The shear-off device of claim 1, wherein the shear flange is of equal thickness from the flange base to the flange end. (Christianson, Col. 3, ll. 13-43, Col. 5-6, claims 1, 13, and Figs. 2-5, teaches an annular flange having a cross section of uniform thickness).
Eliasson, Roberts and Christianson are combinable, because all are from the same field of mechanical structure incorporating frangible load members. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teaching of a uniform thickness flange as taught by Christianson to the shear-off structure, in order to enhance stress distribution during overload events.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Gandhi (US 2018/0281714) teaches a variable shear control energy absorption system for a vehicle including a vehicle frame component and a primary deformable impact absorber.
Tse (US 2016/0123100) teaches an angled segmented backup ring includes a plurality of slots extending radially inward from an outer surface and extending axially parallel to one another.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights