DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he invention relates to” (line 1) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 and 3-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Indefinite language includes, but is not limited to: “a same rotational speed depending on…” (claim 1, line 10) and “so that” (line 12), as well as the remaining recitations in claim 1 are generally narrative and indefinite. These recitations appear to recite a process that is not only improperly placed within a product claim, but are also written in a manner such that it is unclear regarding whether or not the limitations are or are not positively recited.
The recitation of “each of the respective unbalanced masses are” in claim 4 should be “each said unbalanced mass is,” for example, in order to clarify the claim.
Claim 6 recites “when,” “are used” and “is assigned,” which are narrative process-type recitations. Claims 8 and 12 have similar recitations.
The recitations of “is designed as” in claims 9 and 10 are vague, narrative and indefinite.
The process of claims 11-13 are improperly recited, narrative and indefinite. For example, “is set down” (claim 11, line 3) should be “setting down,” in order to properly clam the process. Generally, process steps should have an “ing” ending (“setting,” in this example), in order to properly claim each step.
The term “so-called” in claim 12 is awkward and indefinite. The entire claim is narrative and indefinite.
The term “possible impact forces” in claim 13 has no defined scope. The entire claim is narrative and indefinite.
Terms “it” and “its” must be replaced by positive recitations of specific elements due to the equivocal nature of the terms.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of indefinite language. Thorough revision is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wollanek et al. (U.S. Patent 11,891,761).
Wollanek discloses a machine (1) for stabilizing a track (title, for example) having a frame (not labeled, see Figure 1) supported on rail-based running gears (4) and a height-adjustable stabilizing unit (7) which can be rolled on track rails (3) via rollers (10). There is a vibration exciter (Figure 2, for example) with rotating unbalanced masses (14). There is a linear drive (9) and the unbalanced masses are capable of operating as claimed (Figures 10 and 11, for example).
Wollanek appears to meet claim 2 recitations. Note the 112 rejection, above.
Regarding claim 4, the axis of rotation is as claimed (Figure 1, for example).
Regarding claim 5, see Figure 2.
There are two stabilizing units (Figure 1) and there is a control device (31). Claims 6 and 8 are so indefinite that this is sufficient to meet the recitations of claims 6-8.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Wollanek discloses both hydraulic and electric actuators.
Wollanek appears to meet the process recitations of claims 11-13. Again, note the 112 rejections, above.
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 3 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollanek et al. (U.S. Patent 11,891,761), as applied above.
Regarding claim 3, Wollanek optionally includes a gear (24) but leaves the configuration to one skilled in the art. The examiner takes Official notice that gearwheels are well known gears and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used gearwheels with Wollanek in order to effectively operate the system.
As discussed above, Wollanek appears to meet the process recitations. Further, given the configuration of the stabilizing unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have operated it as claimed in order to achieve a desired result since, as discussed in the 102 rejection, the machine is configured as claimed and the purpose is the same as the purpose of the current specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Many of the 112 rejections have not been addressed. Claim 2 was completely narrative and indefinite. Incorporation of this claim in an unedited form further complicates the indefiniteness issues, already present and outlined in this as well as the previous Office action, in claim 1. As best understood in view of all of the narrative and indefinite issues, the claims continue to be met as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671