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 .
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.
Claim 8 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 use of the word “similar” is relative terminology (per MPEP 2173.05b), however examiner will examine the claim utilizing the word similar; additionally, the word “preferably” creates ambiguity as to whether the limitation following it is optional or not (i.e. whether “identical” is required, or it is not required).
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,9,10,13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunze (US 2023/0047833).
Regarding claim 1, Kunze discloses a bellows as gangway protection for a transitional bridge between two movably connected wagon bodies of a multi-part vehicle or between two movably connected portions of a passenger bridge or passenger stairs (see abstract in Kunze), the bellows comprising:
a roof (7); and
two side walls (8,9) arranged opposite one another, wherein; at least the two side walls or the roof or a connecting region between one of the two side walls and the roof each have a plurality of folds or corrugations (see figures 1-3);
the plurality of folds or corrugations comprises at least a first blank (16) and a second blank (16, as there is multiple members numbered 16, see figures 2 and 3) connected to the first blank made of a flexible sheet material (see Para. 0068);
the first blank and the second blank are at least partially materially bonded to one another (see figures 2 and 3);
the first blank and the second blank overlap or abut one another along one of their sides (see figures 2 and 3, also see abstract in Kunze);
an adhesive is disposed between the first blank and the second blank (see Para. 0012); and the adhesive comprises an at least partially viscous substance (such as glue, see Para. 0041) and/or an adhesive tape with an elastomer (see Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first and the second materially bonded blanks are not positively connected to one another as they are clamped (see Para. 0069).
Regarding claim 9, wherein one or more corrugations or folds of the bellows are formed only from the single first blank (16) and the single second blank (16, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, wherein essentially two U-shaped bellows parts comprising the side walls, roof and base are connected by the first blank and the second blank (see figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, see the abstract as the abstract talks about a gangway, Para. 0002 talks about the transitional bridge and the multi-part vehicle, wherein figure 1 and 3 show the bellows.
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) 3-6,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze in view of Busch (US 2020/0023699). Kunze does not mention that the flexible sheet material comprises a polymer. However, Busch discloses a multi-layered bellows (see figure 6) comprising a polymer (see Para. 0008 and 0011). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kunze by having a polymer in the flexible material, in order to have a flexible material that is lightweight, is resistant to chemicals, has electrical and thermal insulation and a lower cost.
Regarding claim 4, Kunze discloses an elastomer, however Kunze does not disclose a polymer, Busch discloses a polymer, it would have been obvious to make the polymer an elastomer, in order to have the polymer be flexible and durable.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kunze and Busch has a polymer wherein, it would have been obvious for the polymer to be one of the varieties such as resin adhesive, in order to provide an exceptional structural bonding, high mechanical strength and environmental resistance.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kunze and Busch does not mention the type of adhesive, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize an elastomer adhesive in order to provide a high flexibility and elasticity and thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kunze and Busch ends with similar polymers as the material used for the blanks and the adhesive can be seen as polymeric in nature. Additionally and in the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the polymer be similar for both the blanks and the adhesive, in order to allow perfect bonding (as the blanks and adhesive would be identical to each other) in between the blanks and adhesive.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze in view of Koga (US 2017/0323780). Kunze does not mention an adhesive tape with specific thickness. However, Koga discloses a thermally conductive sheet with adhesive tape (see Para. 0215). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kunze by having the adhesive tape be of a specific size (either .1 mm or .5 mm), in order to fit perfectly in between the first and second blanks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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 claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the art of record did not disclose “ applying the second blank to the adhesive tape or the at least partially viscous substance in a manner that the first and the second blank overlap or abut one another along one of their sides; and vulcanizing at least the adhesive tape or the at least partially viscous substance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights