DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 01/21/2025. 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 filed on 01/21/2025 is recognized.
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 07/19/2022 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/21/2025 are acknowledged.
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 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hase (ES 2768258) in view of Naupert (DE 10316297).
Regarding claim 8, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
A rail vehicle, comprising: a direction of travel defining a front end of the rail vehicle facing in the direction of travel and an end of the rail vehicle facing counter to the direction of travel; Hase, Paras. [0007], [0022]-[0024], teaches a railway vehicle, comprising a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, describing the front vehicle and force action in the direction of travel.
a leading bogie at said front end and a trailing bogie at said end facing counter to the direction of travel, said leading bogie and said trailing bogie each being equipped with a respective anti-roll stabilizer; Hase, Paras. [0007], [0018], [0022]-[0024], [0044], teaches a wagon body supported on a first running gear (i.e., leading bogie) and a second running gear (i.e., trailing bogie) running behind the first running gear, where the vehicle includes a rolling compensation arrangement. And further teaches an actuator connected between the wagon body and the running gear frame to adjust rolling motion, located at both the front undercarriage and rear undercarriage.
causing unequal wheel unloading on said leading and trailing bogies to be counteracted when the rail vehicle is subjected to a side wind. Hase, Paras. [0007], [0018], [0026]-[0027], teaches that side winds cause unequal wheel unloading that must be counteracted. And teaches the reduction of side wind-induced wheel unloading on the first running gear caused by a side wind load acting on the wagon body, and the wheel discharge and unloading caused by crosswinds.
Hase does not explicitly disclose:
said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading bogie and said trailing bogie having different roll stiffnesses,
However, Naupert, Paras. [0020]-[0022], Fig. 1, teaches a rail vehicle with leading and trailing running gears/bogies equipped with roll stabilization devices. And shows running gears 3.1, 3.2 and respective roll stabilization devices 4.1, 4.2, wherein the anti-roll stabilizers of the leading bogie and trailing bogie have different roll stiffnesses to counteract unequal wheel unloading caused by a side wind. And further teaches that to combat the reduction in wheel contact force generated by crosswinds hitting the leading vehicle, “the stiffness of the roll stabilization device of the first landing gear [running gear] in the direction of travel is chosen to be lower than that of the following landing gear [running gear]”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rail vehicle of Hase to utilize the different roll stiffnesses as taught by Naupert, in order to provide a reliable solution to counteract crosswind-induced wheel unloading at the front of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8. Hase in view of Naupert discloses:
The rail vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said roll stiffnesses of said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading and trailing bogies cause minimal wheel unloading on said leading and trailing bogies when the rail vehicle is subjected to a side wind. Hase, Paras. [0007], [0026]-[0028], teaches that side winds cause a “reduction in wheel loads (and thus in so-called wheel unloading) …”, “which, however, for reasons of derailment safety, must not exceed the specified limits”. And provides a side wind compensation device intended to “at least reduce the side wind-induced wheel unloading …… caused by a side wind load”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 8 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8. Hase in view of Naupert discloses:
The rail vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said roll stiffness of said anti-roll stabilizer of said leading bogie is less than said roll stiffness of said anti-roll stabilizer of said trailing bogie. Naupert teaches the configuration claimed to mitigate the forces generated by apparent crosswinds at the head of the vehicle as discussed in the rejection of claim 8. Naupert, Paras. [0022], teaches that because crosswind velocity vectors hit the leading vehicle obliquely from the front, generating forces that reduce wheel contact force, “the stiffness of the roll stabilization device of the first landing gear [running gear] in the direction of travel is chosen to be lower than that of the following landing gear [running gear]”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 8 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8. Hase in view of Naupert discloses:
The rail vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading and trailing bogies are each configured as secondary anti-roll stabilizers each being disposed between a car body of the rail vehicle and a respective bogie. Hase, Paras. [0007], [0018], teaches a “wagon body” (i.e., car body) supported on the running gears (i.e., bogies) by spring devices, and teaches that the “active device that acts between the wagon body and the first and/or second running gear”. And further teaches that “The rolling motion ……… may also be actively influenced or adjusted by an actuator connected between the wagon body and the running gear frame”. And since it locates its roll influencing devices between the wagon body and the running gears, modifying this system to utilize the roll stiffnesses of Naupert results in anti-roll stabilizers being disposed as claimed.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 8 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hase (ES 2768258) in view of Naupert (DE 10316297), and further in view of Brundisch (US 2011/0315040).
Regarding claim 12, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8. Brundisch discloses:
The rail vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading and trailing bogies have torsion bars with differing torsional stiffnesses, implementing said different roll stiffnesses of said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading and trailing bogies. Hase in view of Naupert teaches a rail vehicle with leading and trailing bogies equipped with anti-roll stabilizers having different roll stiffnesses to counteract unequal wheel unloading caused by a side wind as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Brundisch, Paras. [0004]-[0011], teaches that for roll stabilizers used “In the region of the undercarriage, use is often made of a torsion shaft which extends transversely to the vehicle longitudinal direction and is known,…” where a “torsion shaft” acts as a roll stabilizers and synonym with a torsion bar.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the anti-roll stabilizers of the Hase-Naupert using torsion bars as taught by Brundisch, in order to utilize a torsion bar to execute the roll stabilization required by the vehicle. Having selected torsion bars to implement the stabilizers would be engineering requirement to provide the torsion bars with different torsional stiffnesses.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hase (ES 2768258) in view of Naupert (DE 10316297), and further in view of Dawkes (US 11,305,606).
Regarding claim 13, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8. Dawkes discloses:
The rail vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said leading and trailing bogies each have a respective bogie frame and a respective lever with differing lengths disposed between said torsion bar and said bogie frame of each of said anti-roll stabilizers, implementing said different roll stiffnesses of said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading and trailing bogies. Hase in view of Naupert teaches a rail vehicle with leading and trailing bogies equipped with anti-roll stabilizers having different roll stiffnesses to counteract unequal wheel unloading caused by a side wind as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Dawkes, Col. 2, ll. 26-51, “the actuator unit provides a first lever arm for the first bar portion and a second lever arm for the second bar portion, the first lever arm and the second lever arm being …., the ratio between the length of the first lever arm and the length of the second lever arm is adjustable for achieving the first selectable mode and the second selectable mode”, teaches an anti-roll bar system comprising lever arms connected to bar portions, where the ratio between the length of the first lever arm and a second lever arm is adjustable to achieve different torque ratios/modes. And further teaches that by varying these lever arm lengths, “…….wherein the effective length of the first lever and the effective length of the second lever are variable for achieving the adjustable ratio between the length of the first lever arm and the length of the second lever arm. Hereby, the effective stiffness of the ARB can be adjustable in a robust and non-complicated way”.
Dawkes discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly fixing the lever arms at permanent differing lengths. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fix the lever arms at specific differing values to achieve the asymmetric stiffness of Naupert, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the anti-roll stabilizers of the Hase-Naupert using the lever-length structure as taught by Dawkes, in order to adjust the effective stiffness of the anti-roll stabilizers in a robust way to achieve different roll stiffnesses required between the leading and trailing bogies.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hase (ES 2768258) in view of Naupert (DE 10316297), and further in view of Sorniotti (US 2020/0062069).
Regarding claim 14, Hase in view of Naupert discloses the limitations of claim 8. Sorniotti discloses:
The rail vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said anti-roll stabilizers of said leading and trailing bogies have an overall roll stiffness corresponding to an overall roll stiffness of said leading and trailing bogies having identical roll stiffnesses without taking into account an effect of a side wind on the rail vehicle. Hase in view of Naupert teaches a rail vehicle with leading and trailing bogies equipped with anti-roll stabilizers having different roll stiffnesses to counteract unequal wheel unloading caused by a side wind as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Sorniotti, Paras. [0002], [0032]-[0037], “… the sum of the load transfers on the front and rear axles in cornering is approximately constant with any suspension set-up, …”, and “a controllable suspension system, which varies the front-to-total anti-roll moment distribution”. And teaches calculating a “front-to-total anti-roll moment distribution” as a ratio of the front anti-roll moment contribution to the “total anti-roll moment contribution”. Also notes that its teachings regarding anti-roll moment distribution “may be suitably incorporated as part of other types of vehicles”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the baseline roll moment distribution as taught by Sorniotti to the rail vehicle of Hase-Naupert. When redistributing the roll stiffness to be softer in the front and stiffer in the rear as required by Naupert, it would have been a routine design choice to utilize the maintaining constant total overall roll stiffness, as taught by Sorniotti, in order to ensure that the overall roll resistance and stability of the vehicle remain optimal.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Meier (US 2022/0144322) teaches a rail vehicle includes a bogie frame and at least four wheels arranged at the bogie frame.
Brandstaetter (US 2015/0135985) teaches a rail vehicle includes at least one running gear and at least one anti-roll stabilizer which is connected to two different vehicle parts of the rail vehicle.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 8-14 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