DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 .
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, 3-5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinari et al (JP 2014015060 A; “Yoshinari” hereinafter), in view of Stoff (US 20210229710; “Stoff” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshinari discloses: a vehicle power converter installable on a railway vehicle, the vehicle power converter comprising:
a housing (24, figs. 2-3) accommodating a power conversion circuit (10, figs. 1-2);
an engagement member (40a, 40b, 40c, 48, 50, figs. 2 and 5) fixed to a vertically upward surface of the housing (28a) and a surface (24e) of the housing intersecting with a traveling direction (see ‘TD’ in annotated fig. 3 below) of the railway vehicle (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1-3); and
PNG
media_image1.png
712
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a guide attachable (25) under a floor of a vehicle body (17) of the railway vehicle (12) to extend in a width direction of the vehicle body (see annotated fig. 3 below), the guide having a shape engageable with the engagement member (figs. 2-3, 5), and such that the surface of the housing intersecting with the traveling direction of the railway vehicle extends along the width direction of the vehicle body (fig. 3).
Yoshinari does not explicitly teach:
The guide supporting the engagement member to allow movement of the engagement member in the width direction.
However, Stoff teaches:
a guide (12 and 13, figs. 1 and 2) supporting an engagement member (14) to allow movement of the engagement member in the width direction (Y-axis, figs. 1-2, “Since the intermediate plates 13 are displaceable in the x direction and in the y direction, the transformer 15 can be displaced during a maintenance operation in order to set a predetermined center of gravity position of the electric locomotive. Alternatively, it is also possible in a simple manner to make a bore in the intermediate plate 13 at a desired position, and the transformer claws 14 can be displaced in the x direction and in the y direction corresponding to the position of the new bore without the intermediate plate being displaced”, ¶[0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the guide member of Yoshinari with a slot shaped bore, in order to allow movement of the engagement member in the width direction for the advantage of displacing the power converter during a maintenance operation in order to set a predetermined center of gravity position of the railway vehicle (¶[0028])
Regarding claim 3, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshinari further discloses:
wherein the engagement member includes a pair of columns (see annotated fig. 5 below) extending in the width direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
621
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshinari further discloses: wherein the engagement member includes a plurality of hangers (48 and 50, fig. 5) aligned in the width direction and in a traveling direction of the railway vehicle (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1, 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshinari further discloses:
wherein the guide includes a pair of guide rails (two instances of 25, fig. 3) extending in the width direction (as disclosed upon examination of annotated figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 5, and Yoshinari further discloses:
wherein the guide includes a pair of frames (46) attachable to the vehicle body (fig. 5), and the pair of guide rails (25) are fixed to the pair of frames (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 5, and Yoshinari further discloses:
wherein each of the pair of guide rails has an end (where hole 46a is disposed in fig. 5) closer to the vehicle body fixable to the vehicle body (¶[0020]) and another end farther from the vehicle body (51) supporting the engagement member (¶[0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshinari further discloses:
wherein the guide includes a plurality of supports (48) aligned in the width direction and in a traveling direction of the railway vehicle (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 3, 5, ¶[0020]), and each of the plurality of supports has an end closer to the vehicle body fixable to the vehicle body (where 48a is disposed, fig. 5, ¶[0020]) and another end farther from the vehicle body (48b, fig. 5) supporting the engagement member (fig. 3, ¶[0021]).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinari in view of Stoff , and further in view of Kelly (US 11925266; “Kelly” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the pair of guide rails has a T-shaped cross section perpendicular to the width direction.
However, Kelly teaches:
a guide rail (146, fig. 5) has a T-shaped cross section (col. 9, lines 23-26) perpendicular to a width direction (horizontal direction of fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kelly’s teaching into Yoshinari in view of Stoff, such that each of the pair of guide rails has a T-shaped cross section perpendicular to the width direction, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kelly. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of well known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the engagement member has a T-shaped cross section perpendicular to the width direction.
However, Kelly teaches:
an engagement member (146, fig. 5) has a T-shaped cross section (col. 9, lines 23-26) perpendicular to a width direction (horizontal direction of fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kelly’s teaching into Yoshinari in view of Stoff, such that the engagement member has a T-shaped cross section perpendicular to the width direction, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kelly. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of well known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinari in view of Stoff, and further in view of Chen et al (US 20220346273; “Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the housing is waterproof and dustproof.
However, Chen teaches:
a housing (100, fig. 1) is waterproof and dustproof (¶[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Chen’s teaching into Yoshinari in view of Stoff such that the housing is waterproof and dustproof, in order to protect the power conversion circuit from adverse environmental conditions (¶[0002]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Chen. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of well known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinari in view of Stoff as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kaiser et al (US 20160009298; “Kaiser” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshinari in view of Stoff discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the engagement member extends from a first side to a second side of the housing in the width direction.
However, Kaiser teaches:
engagement member (40, 42, fig. 2) extends from a first side to a second side of the housing in the width direction (see annotated fig. 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshinari’s engagement member as modified by Stoff, with Kaiser’s teaching, such that a beam is disposed between Yoshinari’s elements 40a, and after each element 40a extending up to each vertical side of the housing in the width direction, to meet the limitation of claim 12, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kaiser. The claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of well known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments, the surface of the housing intersecting with a traveling direction of the railway vehicle of Yoshinari has been remapped to address the change in scope of said amendment and meet the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights