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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in Lines 6, 8 and 10, respectively, the recitation of “a rail vehicle” should be “the rail vehicle.” Antecedent basis for “a rail vehicle” is set forth in Line 4. If Applicant means to set forth different rail vehicles, the claim should be written to indicate different rail vehicles (e.g., a first rail vehicle, a second rail vehicle, etc.). Appropriate correction is 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 18-24 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 18 recites “the slide rails are embodied in two parts, so they can be extended and retracted in opposite directions and meet on the rail supports” in Lines 22-23. The phrase “can be” infers an option, which creates a lack of clarity as to claim scope. Applicant may use “extendable/retractable” or “capable of being” if capability is meant to be set forth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 24 recites “an electronic device for storing,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 106424760 A) in view of Gutohrlein et al. (US Patent No. 4,674,369) or Brinkmann (EP 195891 A).
(Claim 18) Jiang et al. (“Jiang”) discloses a device for machining (Figs. 1-3) that includes a first underfloor wheelset lathe (2) for reprofiling wheels and brake discs from a first wheelset of a rail vehicle (Translation at ¶¶ 0007-0030), a second underfloor wheelset lathe (7) for reprofiling wheels and brake discs from a second wheelset of a rail vehicle (Translation at ¶¶ 0007-0030), a third underfloor wheelset lathe (29) for reprofiling wheels and brake discs from a third wheelset of a rail vehicle (Translation at ¶¶ 0023-0030), and a fourth underfloor wheelset lathe (27) for reprofiling wheels and brake discs from a fourth wheelset of a rail vehicle (Translation at ¶¶ 0023-0030). A first rail support (28) is arranged between the third underfloor wheelset lathe (29) and the fourth underfloor wheelset lathe (27; Fig. 3). The distance between the second underfloor wheelset lathe (7) and the first underfloor wheelset lathe (2) is adjustable as the second lathe is described as being on a moving device (Translation at ¶¶ 0021-0022; 12 (sliding rail), 13 (first rail)). The disclosure states that the third lathe and the fourth lathe are automatically adjustable to adjust to a center of the wheel bogies, and that all four wheelset lathes are capable of reciprocating (i.e., forward and rearward movement) (Translation at ¶¶ 0025-0027, 0029). While there is no explicit disclosure that first rail support as well as the third and fourth underfloor wheelset lathes are capable of independent movement, the independent movement of each of these features is suggested in Figure 3 by each being mounted upon the second rail (20) via respective sliding rails (18, 21, 22; Translation at ¶¶ 0018, 0022, 0029). Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed in Jiang with independently a movable first rail support and movable third and fourth lathes along with the sliding rails thereon as suggested by the sliding rail arrangements in order to save time during setup/adjustment and increase flexibility of the device to adjust to different wheel spacings. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including: applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results). It is worth noting that even if the fourth lathe (27) alone were movable, then the first rail support would then have to move whether or not it is connected directly to the fourth lathe base. Because the fourth lathe would collide with, or be limited by the first rail support, the first rail support would have to move to enable the fourth rail to move. Due to the independent movement of the third and fourth wheelset lathes as well as the disclosure that all four underfloor wheelset lathes are mounted to be displaceable in the direction of travel (Translation at ¶ 0029), a respective distance between the first wheelset lathe and each of the third and fourth wheelset lathes is adjustable.
Jiang discloses main rails and transition rails (1, 4, 26, 28, 30, 31) that intervene between main rails between the first and the second underfloor wheelset lathes (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0024, 0025), but the reference does not explicitly disclose movable slide rails that are movable in a direction of travel relative to the first rail support that are embodied in two part such that they can be extended and retracted in opposite directions and meet on the rails supports, and in an extended state from the main rails on each side of the third and fourth wheelset lathes, are arranged in sections between the third and the fourth underfloor wheelset lathes, the slide rails in an extended state being supported by the first rail support, and the slide rails being movable relative to main rails to which each of the slide rails are connected.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gutohrlein discloses movable slide rails (34, 35; Col. 1, Lines 67-68; Col. 2, Lines 1-2) that are movable in a direction of travel relative to fixed/main rails (30-33) that are embodied in two part (34, 35) such that they can be extended and retracted in opposite directions and meet on the rails supports, and in an extended state, are arranged at least in sections between two sides of a pit for underfloor wheelset lathes (Col. 1, Lines 67-68; Col. 2, Lines 1-2; Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed in Jiang with movable slide rails as suggested by Gutohrlein in order to bridge the gap between the first and the second underfloor wheelset lathes and first rail support so that the vehicle is supported while moving into position over the device. While the modified device includes movable slide rails that are supported by opposing main rails to allow for a train car to pass over the lathe gap, it would be obvious to try to have the slide rails also rest on the rail support between the lathes. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including: “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of solutions with results being predictable).
In the alternative, Brinkmann discloses movable slide rails (29, 30; Translation ¶¶ 0011, 0012) that are movable in a direction of travel relative to fixed/main rails (25-28) that are embodied in two part such that they can be extended and retracted in opposite directions and meet on the rails supports, and in an extended state, are arranged at least in sections between two sides of a pit for underfloor wheelset lathes (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed in Jiang with movable slide rails as suggested by Brinkmann in order to bridge the gap between the first and the second underfloor wheelset lathes and first rail support so that the vehicle is supported while moving into position over the device. While the modified Jiang device includes movable slide rails that are supported by opposing main rails to allow for a train car to pass over the lathe gap, it would be obvious to try to have the slide rails also rest on the rail support between the lathes. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including: “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of solutions with results being predictable).
(Claim 20) The first underfloor wheelset lathe (Jiang 2) and the second underfloor wheelset lathe (Jiang 7) are arranged on opposite sides of a second rail support (Jiang 6; Fig. 2).
(Claim 21) The second rail support (Jiang 6) is not explicitly disclosed as being displaceable relative to the first underfloor wheelset lathe and/or relative to the second underfloor wheelset lathe. Yet, the disclosure states that the first lathe and the second lathe are automatically adjustable to adjust to a center of the wheel bogies (Jiang Translation at ¶¶ 0021-0022). It should be noted that the movement of the first rail support is suggested in Figure 2 by being mounted upon rails (Jiang 13). Because Applicant failed to dispute the assertion that adjustment of the second rail support is well-known in the art, the official notice assertion is taken as Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA). See MPEP § 2144.03 C. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed in Jiang with a movable second rail support in order to provide sufficient support for the train car between the first and second lathes no matter the distance that the third and fourth lathes are spaced apart.
(Claim 22) Each of the third underfloor wheelset lathe (Jiang 29) and the fourth underfloor wheelset lathe (Jiang 27) have a crossbeam and are arranged on opposite sides of the first rail support such that crossbeams of each of the third underfloor wheelset lathe and the fourth underfloor wheelset lathe are facing one another (Jiang Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 23) The first rail support (Jiang 28) is mechanically coupled to the third underfloor wheelset lathe or to the fourth underfloor wheelset lathe at the very least by way of the rails (Jiang 20).
(Claim 24) The device is characterized by an electronic device capable of storing data for controlling the positioning of the underfloor wheelset lathes and/or the rail supports (CNC machine disclosed along with automatic control of positioning of lathes - Jiang Translation at ¶¶ 0001-0002, 0007-0030).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 106424760 A) in view of Kunze (DE 1117356 B) further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose the lathe structure as claimed.
Yet, the AAPA discloses the known lathe structure (Figs. 1, 2; Written Description at pages 11-13) characterized in that an underfloor wheelset lathe includes the following: a machine stand (3), a crossbeam (2) for bridging a workshop track with two rails in the transverse direction, two roller carriers (7A, 7B), four friction rollers (8; Fig. 1), at least one friction roller drive (9) for driving the friction rollers, and at least one axial guide roller for axial guidance of the wheelset (19), with the crossbeam being mounted on the machine stand (Fig. 2), with the roller carriers being movably connected to the machine stand (Figs. 1, 2; Written Description at pages 11-13), and with the friction rollers being rotatably mounted on the roller carrier (Figs. 1, 2; Written Description at pages 11-13). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed in Jiang with a lathe structure as taught by the AAPA in order to support train wheels during a cutting operation. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including: some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention; and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the specification at the time of filing provides sufficient description of an electronic device such that one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the limitation in claim 24. Applicant also alleges that the prior art of record fails to disclose the slide rails in two parts as claimed. Examiner disagrees.
The specification at the time of filing fails to provide the structure that correlates to an electronic device for storing vehicle data. Applicant fails, even in argument, to set forth what the electronic device would mean to one of ordinary skill. The argument merely cites areas of the written description that recites what functions the electronic device is intended to perform. As such, the indefiniteness rejection has been maintained.
The prior art reads upon the claim limitation of the slide rails embodied in two parts as claimed. There is one slide rail per main rail. There are two main rails so there are two slide rails (i.e., slide rails embodied in two parts). The slide rails are extendable and retractable. The slide rails meet on the rail supports. Thus, the prior art of record reads upon the claimed invention.
It appears that Applicant intends the limitation (slide rails embodied in two parts) to require slide rails on opposing (i.e., on opposing sides of the gap formed by underfloor lathes) main rails such that a first slide rail extends in a first direction toward the rail support and a second slide rail extends in a second direction, opposite the first direction, such that each slide rail directly connects to the rail support. Simply put, the language within the claim does not require such an interpretation. Even if the language reflects such an intention, Applicant should be prepared to answer a duplication of parts case law and/or “obvious to try” obviousness grounds of rejection.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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 It is worth noting that “single part” rail supports are disclosed as alternatives to the rail supports embodied in two parts. (Written Description Page 15).