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
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“said linear guides” (claim 1, lines 15-16) should be changed to --said two linear guides--;
“said linear guide” (claim 9, line 2) should be changed to --said two linear guides--;
“second quick-change element” (claim 14, lines 2, 3, 4 (three instances)) should be changed to --quick-change element-- (why is there a “second quick-change element” when this is the only instance of the term “quick-change element” in the claim set?).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “wherein said quick-change device includes a second quick-change element, said second quick-change element is disposed at a second grinding unit, and said second quick-change element being configured for fastening said second grinding unit at said grinding unit carrier after said first grinding unit has been removed”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, in claim 1, the “quick-change device” is defined as particular structure, including “two linear guides”, each having a groove arranged on a side of the grinding unit carrier and a projection fastened to the first grinding unit. For claim 14, this “quick-change device” now also includes “a second quick-change element” that is present on a “second grinding unit”. Does this mean that that the “quick-change device” is a loose collection of parts, where some of the parts (e.g., the grooves) exist on the machine frame (as arranged on the grinding unit carrier), some of the parts (e.g., the projections) exist being attached to the first grinding unit, and some of the parts (e.g., the projections) exist being attached to the second grinding unit? This interpretation would necessarily require the presence the second grinding unit, where the “rail grinding machine” of the preamble has the meaning of a “rail grinding system” because of the presence of a second grinding unit. Or does this limitation mean something else? If the interpretation discussed above is intended, Examiner suggests amending claim 14 as follows:
--Claim 14: A rail grinding system, comprising:
the rail grinding machine according to claim 1, and
a second grinding unit,
wherein the second grinding unit comprises two projections fastened to the second grinding unit,
wherein the two projections of the second grinding unit are configured for fastening the second grinding unit to the grinding unit carrier of the rail grinding machine via the grooves of the two linear guides when the first grinding unit has been removed from the rail grinding machine,
wherein the second grinding unit is configured for deburring a rail.--
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Kuhnel in view of Theurer
Claims 1, 7-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019238247 A1 (“Kuhnel”) (citations are to the translation filed 08/13/2024) in view of US 4249346 A (“Theurer”).
Kuhnel pertains to a grinding machine (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Theurer pertains to a grinding machine (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Kuhnel discloses a rail grinding machine for grinding rails of a track (Fig. 1, rail grinding machine 1), the rail grinding machine comprising:
a machine frame (Fig. 1, machine frame 3);
a plurality of guiding rollers rotatably mounted on said machine frame for manually shifting the rail grinding machine on rails (Fig. 1, grinding rollers 4 shift machine 1 on rails 2);
a cross slide displaceably mounted on said machine frame in a transverse direction to the rails of the track (Fig. 1, cross slide 11, traverse direction is the Y-direction shown);
a grinding unit carrier disposed at said cross slide (Figs. 1-7, grinding unit 32 is mounted to guide frame 23 via carrier 33, the guide frame 23 is disposed at cross slide 11);
a first grinding unit being mounted on two sides to said grinding unit carrier (Figs. 1-6, grinding unit 32, including element 37, is mounted on the left and right sides to carrier 33 as shown).
a quick-change device for removably mounting said first grinding unit at said grinding unit carrier... (see annotated Fig. 4 below; Figs. 6-7, portions of elements 33 and 37 (including shown nuts, bolts, and holes) form a “quick-change” device for removably mounting grinding unit 32 to the grinding unit carrier 33).
[AltContent: textbox (“Quick-change device” includes portions of elements 33 and 37 and nuts/bolts/holes as shown)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
1022
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuhnel Fig. 4 (annotated)
Kuhnel does not explicitly disclose said quick-change device including two linear guides, each defined by a groove extending parallel to the transverse direction and a projection mating in said groove and displaceable along said groove in the transverse direction, said grooves being arranged on facing sides of said grinding unit carrier and said projections being fastened to said first grinding unit, and said [two] linear guides being a mounting for removably mounting said first grinding unit to said grinding unit carrier. However, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious this claim.
Theurer discloses:
a grinding unit carrier (Fig. 7, carrier 69 including element 70 for mounting grinding unit 67/68 via element 71; 10:20-57);
a first grinding unit (Fig. 7, grinding unit 67/68);
a quick-change device for removably mounting said first grinding unit at said grinding unit carrier, said quick-change device including two linear guides, each defined by a groove extending parallel to the transverse direction and a projection mating in said groove and displaceable along said groove in the transverse direction, said grooves being arranged on facing sides of said grinding unit carrier and said projections being fastened to said first grinding unit, and said [two] linear guides being a mounting for removably mounting said first grinding unit to said grinding unit carrier (Fig. 7; 10:20-57, quick-change device includes the linear guide of element 70 (a dovetail groove) extending parallel to the transverse direction and projection of element 71 that mates in the dovetail groove of element 70, where the dovetail groove of element 70 is arranged on the facing side of the grinding unit carrier (facing the grinding unit 67/68) and the projection of element 71 is fastened to the grinding unit 67/68, where this assembly is capable of performing the recited function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Theurer with Kuhnel by modifying the “quick-change device” (on both the left and right sides, as shown in Fig. 4) of Kuhnel with the dovetail “quick-change device” of Theurer (to allow for sliding in the Y-axis (Y-axis per Kuhnel Fig. 4)). The use of a dovetail linear guide (known as a dovetail key/keyway) is well-known for quickly and slidably attaching and detaching two elements to/from each other (see US 712537 A (“Hisey”) Fig. 3; 2:118-3:25, dovetail key and keyway 58/59). Further, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a case of simple substitution, where the nuts/bolts/holes attachment structure of Kuhnel is substituted with the dovetail linear guide (dovetail key/keyway) structure of Theurer. The use of a dovetail key (projection) and dovetail keyway (groove) would have provided the predictable result of having a grinding unit that could be slidably attached/detached to the grinding unit carrier more easily compared to a nuts/bolts/holes attachment method (e.g., for replacement with another grinding unit), where the dovetail key/keyway supports the weight of the grinding unit while the grinding unit is being slidably attached or detached (see, e.g., Hisey Figs. 2-3, dovetail key and keyway 58/59 supports the weight of the grinding unit vertically as shown, even when translated horizontally; 2:125-130, “the part which supports the grinding-wheel—i.e., motor-housing 18—is capable of a motion in an axial direction with reference to the grinding-wheel and independent of the holding-shank 41”).
Regarding claim 7, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses a guide frame disposed at said cross slide (Fig. 6, guide frame 23 is disposed on cross slide 11 via pivots 29).
Regarding claim 8, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above, Kuhnel further discloses a guide frame swivel-mounted on said cross slide about a swivel axis running parallel to a longitudinal direction (Figs. 5, 6, guide frame 23 is swivel-mounted on cross slide 11 via pivots 29 about axis 24).
Regarding claim 9, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses a guide frame defining a plane, said [two] linear guide[s] running transversely to said plane defined by said guide frame (Figs. 5, 6, guide frame 23 defines a plane (parallel to X-Z plane), and the linear guide (as modified in the Kuhnel/Theurer combination) runs transversely to the guide frame plane).
Regarding claim 10, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses wherein said cross slide includes a closed cross slide frame (Figs. 1, 5-7, cross slide frame 13 has elements 14/15/16/17 and is closed about the perimeter; p. 3, “a closed cross slide frame 13”).
Regarding claim 11, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 10 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses wherein said closed cross slide frame bounds an inner space in which said first grinding unit is at least partially disposed (Figs. 5-6, grinding unit 32 is disposed within inner space bounded by cross slide frame 13).
Regarding claim 12, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses a guide frame, and said grinding unit carrier being mounted on said guide frame (Figs. 5-7, grinding unit 32 is mounted to guide frame 23 via carrier 33).
Regarding claim 13, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious Kuhnel discloses the rail grinding machine of claim 7 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses wherein said guide frame includes two guide elements, and two carriers are mounted on said two guide elements for carrying said first grinding unit (Figs. 4, 6-7, guide columns 25/26 (“two guide elements”) and support columns 35/36 (“two carriers”) carry grinding unit 32).
Regarding claim 14, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel and Theurer do not disclose wherein said quick-change device includes a second quick-change element, said second quick-change element is disposed at a second grinding unit, and said second quick-change element being configured for fastening said second grinding unit at said grinding unit carrier after said first grinding unit has been removed, wherein said second grinding unit is configured for deburring a rail. However, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious this claim.
As an initial matter (see § 112(b) rejection above), this claim is interpreted to require the presence of a second grinding unit that has a “quick-change element” similar to the “quick-change device” of claim 1, such that the second grinding unit could be mounted in place of the first grinding unit of claim 1 (using this “quick-change element”) via the grooves of the “quick-change device” arranged on the grinding unit carrier of claim 1.
As discussed in claim 1, Kuhnel discloses a first grinding unit that is capable of deburring a rail (e.g., by performing a grinding operation (see Abstr.)), having a “quick-change device” as claimed. Further, as discussed in claim 1, the “quick-change device” was modified by the teachings of Theurer to include two linear guides, each with a groove and projection as recited.
The obviousness rationale for claim 14 is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to include also a second grinding unit for deburring a rail (like the “first grinding unit), having the same “quick-change device” of the first grinding unit (i.e., as claimed in claim 14 for the second grinding unit). This would have been obvious because having multiple grinding units with the same attachment mechanism (the “quick-change device”) allows a user to quickly replace a defective grinding unit in order to continue work, and/or allows a user to quickly replace the first grinding unit with a second grinding unit that has a different grinding wheel attached (e.g., coarse grit vs. fine grit) to perform a different grinding/deburring operation. Examiner notes that Applicant states no new and unexpected result due to having a second (or multiple) grinding unit(s) (see e.g., Spec. ¶ 0005). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 19, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses wherein said first grinding unit is configured for profiling a rail (Abstr.; Fig. 6, grinding unit 32 is capable of profiling a rail by grinding).
Kuhnel in view of Theurer and Widlroither
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019238247 A1 (“Kuhnel”) (citations are to the translation filed 08/13/2024) in view of US 4249346 A (“Theurer”) and US 20190368132 A1 (“Widlroither”).
Kuhnel pertains to a grinding machine (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Theurer pertains to a grinding machine (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Widlroither pertains to a grinding machine (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 15, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses a fine positioner for fine positioning of said cross slide in the transverse direction (Figs. 1, 3, 5, handwheel 22 and spindle 12; p. 3, “The cross slide spindle drive 12 is fastened to the cross slide 11 and the machine frame 3 and can be operated manually by means of a handwheel 22, so that the cross slide 11 can be displaced in the y direction”).
Kuhnel and Theurer do not explicitly disclose a coarse positioner for coarse positioning...of said cross slide in the transverse direction. However, the Kuhnel/Theurer/Widlroither combination makes obvious this claim.
Widlroither discloses a coarse positioner for coarse positioning...of said cross slide in the transverse direction (Figs. 1, 4-7, lever 15 and link 17; ¶ 0027, “The lever 15 is connected to the intermediate frame 8 by means of a linkage 17”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Widlroither with the Kuhnel/Theurer combination by further modifying the rail grinding machine to also include Widlroither’s coarse positioning device, including lever 15 and link 17. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this gives the machine the added capability of making rapid positioning changes to the cross slide in combination with fine positioning changes using the handwheel 22 and spindle 12 (“fine positioning device”) of Kuhnel. For example, to displace the cross slide a large distance, it would take many revolutions of the Kuhnel handwheel 22 if the machine did not also have a coarse positioning device.
Regarding claim 16, the Kuhnel/Theurer combination makes obvious the rail grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Kuhnel further discloses wherein said at least one grinding unit includes a grinding tool drive (Fig. 2, drive motor 41; p. 4, “The grinding unit 32 has a drive motor 41”).
Kuhnel and Theurer do not explicitly disclose wherein said first grinding unit includes a grinding tool drive having a combustion engine. However, the Kuhnel/Theurer/Widlroither combination makes obvious this claim.
Widlroither discloses wherein said first grinding unit includes a grinding tool drive having a combustion engine (¶ 0016, “a combustion engine/generator unit is arranged as energy module”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Widlroither with the Kuhnel/Theurer combination by further modifying the grinding unit to have a combustion engine to power the drive. This would have been obvious because using a combustion engine that runs on gasoline would make the machine independent of any power cords (for an electric motor) and would have a long run time compared to running on batteries. Further, although not explicitly discussed in Kuhnel, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that Kuhnel’s drive motor 41 appears to be a combustion engine, as drive motor 41 appears to include a gasoline tank and a carburetor/air intake (Kuhnel Fig. 2, near reference 32).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 2-6 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 7-19 are pending. Claims 17-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1, 7-16, and 19 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejections of claim 14 are hereby withdrawn. However, see new § 112(b) rejection of claim 14 due to Applicant’s amendments). Also, see interpretation note for claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 are not persuasive (Reply at 7-10). As explained in the rejection above, Theurer is relied upon for its dovetail groove and projection (elements 70, 71) as shown in Fig. 7. It matters not whether Theurer calls this a “quick-change device” or a “linear guide”—what matters is that this dovetail key/keyway structure is disclosed in relation to the mounting of a grinding unit 67/68 (Theurer Fig. 7; 10:39-41, “For this purpose, transverse beam 70 is affixed to carrier frame 69 and this beam defines a dovetailed guide receiving guide plate 71”). Applicant has an incorrect understanding of obviousness because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); MPEP § 2145(III).
To be clear, Theurer is not relied upon for its disclosure of pins 73 and slots 72 that allows for pivoting movement 76. As stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Theurer is used to modify the replace the nuts/bolts/holes attachment structure of Kuhnel with the dovetail key/keyway structure of Theurer Fig. 7. The question is not whether an invention (i.e., the proposed Kuhnel/Theurer combination) was obvious to the inventor, Applicant, or even a single prior-art author, but whether the invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). There is no requirement under KSR for the prior art to explicitly state an exact technique for obtaining a result if a person of ordinary skill could ascertain how the result could be accomplished based on the prior art in combination with the person’s logic, judgment, and common sense. Id. at 418 (“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an analysis of obviousness...also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are conclusory and are not persuasive. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723