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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 15 are currently amended. A response to applicant’s arguments filed 31 December 2025 can be found at the end of this office action. This office action is Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "may be cut" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear whether the rubber pad is cut to be apart from the end of the concrete sleeper, or if it is simply able to be cut but is not actually cut to be apart from the end of the concrete sleeper. Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper as the placed concrete is cured” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is the same or a different element from the previously recited limitation “as the placed concrete is cured, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper.”
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "may be cut" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear whether the rubber pad is cut to be apart from the end of the concrete sleeper, or if it is simply able to be cut but is not actually cut to be apart from the end of the concrete sleeper. Claims 12-14 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper as the placed concrete is cured” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is the same or a different element from the previously recited limitation “as the placed concrete is cured, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper.”
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "may be cut" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear whether the rubber pad is cut to be apart from the end of the concrete sleeper, or if it is simply able to be cut but is not actually cut to be apart from the end of the concrete sleeper. Claims 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “wherein the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper as the placed concrete is cured” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is the same or a different element from the previously recited limitation “as the placed concrete is cured, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper.”
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) 1-3, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortwein (US 4720043 A) in view of Potocan (US 20100320281 A1) and Hwang (KR 20190115293 A).
In regards to claim 1, Ortwein teaches a nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad using a rubber pad embedded with a stiffener, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad comprising:
a rubber pad (2-4) formed of multiple layers (as seen in Fig. 1) including a lower rubber pad (3) and an upper rubber pad (4), integrated with an attaching nonwoven (col. 2, lines 27-29) fabric (2 below lower rubber pad 3); and
the attaching nonwoven fabric (2 below lower rubber pad 3) configured to come in close contact (as seen in Fig. 1) with a bottom surface of the lower rubber pad (3) of the rubber pad (2-4);
Ortwein does not teach the rubber pad exposed to a bottom surface of a concrete sleeper, wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper; wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded by being pressed toward a surface of concrete placed in a sleeper formwork, and as the placed concrete is cured, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper to secure an attaching force with the concrete sleeper.
Potocan teaches the rubber pad (1) (Fig. 3) exposed to a bottom surface of a concrete sleeper (2) (as seen in Fig. 3), wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric (7) is embedded in the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3) of the concrete sleeper (2); wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric (7) is embedded by being pressed toward a surface of concrete placed in a sleeper formwork (para. [0019], lines 9-16), and as the placed concrete is cured (para. [0019], lines 9-16), the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad (1) is embedded (para. [0019], lines 9-16) in the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3) of the concrete sleeper (2) to secure an attaching force with the concrete sleeper (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include the rubber pad exposed to the bottom surface of a concrete sleeper wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded by being pressed towards a surface of the concrete as the placed concrete is cured as taught by Potocan with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the connection between the rubber pad and sleeper (see Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16).
Ortwein does not teach a stiffener horizontally embedded in the rubber pad; wherein the stiffener resists horizontal deformation of the rubber pad to increase vertical stiffness.
Potocan teaches a stiffener (5) (Fig. 2) horizontally embedded (as seen in Fig. 1) in the rubber pad (1); wherein the stiffener (5) (Fig. 2) resists horizontal deformation (para. [0013]) of the rubber pad (1) (Fig. 3) to increase vertical stiffness (para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a stiffener as taught by Potocan with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the sleeper pad (see Potocan, para. [0013]).
While Ortwein does not explicitly teach wherein the rubber pad may be cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper.
Hwang teaches wherein the rubber pad (410) may be cut to be apart from an end (as seen in Fig. 7) of the concrete sleeper (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rubber pad of Ortwein being cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper as taught by Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing damage to the rubber pad as needed, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, wherein the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is formed of a lattice-shaped (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 2) glass fiber (Potocan, para. [0035], lines 20-23) and is provided as one or more stiffeners (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) horizontally disposed (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) in a middle (at the location of the upper layer 2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) of the rubber pad (2-4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, wherein the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is horizontally mounted (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) on an upper portion (at the location of the upper layer 2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) of the lower rubber pad (3) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) of the rubber pad (2-4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) and is adhered using an adhesive.
In regards to claim 15, A method of constructing a nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad using a rubber pad, the method comprising:
forming a nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad (2-4), with which an attaching nonwoven fabric (lower layer 2) is in close contact (as seen in Fig. 1), on a bottom surface of a rubber pad (the bottom surface of layer 3); and
placing the concrete sleeper (13) on a gravel ballast (12),
Ortwein does not teach the rubber pad being embedded with a stiffener; wherein the stiffener is horizontally embedded in the rubber pad to resist horizontal deformation of the rubber pad and increase vertical stiffness.
Potocan teaches the rubber pad (1) being embedded with a stiffener (5) (Fig. 2); wherein the stiffener (5) is horizontally embedded (as seen in Fig. 1) in the rubber pad (1) to resist horizontal deformation (para. [0013]) of the rubber pad (1) (Fig. 3) to increase vertical stiffness (para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a stiffener as taught by Potocan with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the sleeper pad (see Potocan, para. [0013]).
Ortwein does not teach placing concrete in a sleeper formwork; pressing a surface of the concrete placed in the sleeper formwork so that the attaching nonwoven fabric of the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded; as the placed concrete is cured, integrating the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad with a bottom surface of a concrete sleeper; wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded by being pressed toward a surface of concrete placed in the sleeper formwork, and as the placed concrete is cured, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in a bottom surface of the concrete sleeper to secure an attaching force with the concrete sleeper.
Potocan teaches placing concrete in a sleeper formwork (para. [0019], lines 9-16); pressing a surface of the concrete placed in the sleeper formwork so that the attaching nonwoven fabric (7) of the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded (para. [0019], lines 9-16); as the placed concrete is cured (para. [0019], lines 9-16), integrating the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad (1) with a bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3) of a concrete sleeper (2); wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric (7) is embedded (para. [0019], lines 9-16) by being pressed toward a surface of concrete placed in the sleeper formwork (para. [0019], lines 9-16), and as the placed concrete is cured (para. [0019], lines 9-16), the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad (1) is embedded (para. [0019], lines 9-16) in a bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3) of the concrete sleeper (2) to secure an attaching force with the concrete sleeper (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include the rubber pad exposed to the bottom surface of a concrete sleeper wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded by being pressed towards a surface of the concrete as the placed concrete is cured as taught by Potocan with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the connection between the rubber pad and sleeper (see Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16).
While Ortwein does not explicitly teach wherein the rubber pad may be cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper.
Hwang teaches wherein the rubber pad (410) may be cut to be apart from an end (as seen in Fig. 7) of the concrete sleeper (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rubber pad of Ortwein being cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper as taught by Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing damage to the rubber pad as needed, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the rubber pad (2-4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) is formed of multiple layers (2-4) including the lower rubber pad (3) and the upper rubber pad (4), is integrated with the attaching nonwoven fabric (lower layer 2), and is exposed to the bottom surface (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 3) of the concrete sleeper (2) (Potocan, Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is formed of a lattice-shaped (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 2) glass fiber (Potocan, para. [0035], lines 20-23), is horizontally mounted (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) on an upper portion (the location of the upper layer 2 which is located at the upper surface of 3) of the lower rubber pad (3) of the rubber pad, and is adhered using an adhesive (Potocan, para. [0034], lines 19-21).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortwein (US 4720043 A) in view of Potocan (US 20100320281 A1), Powell (US 20120219746 A1), and Hwang (KR 20190115293 A).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, wherein, in a state in which the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is horizontally embedded (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) between (at the location of the upper layer 2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) the lower rubber pad (3) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) and the upper rubber pad (4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1).
Ortwein does not teach the lower rubber pad and the upper rubber pad are adhered to each other by a thermal fusion process.
Powell teaches a thermal fusion process (para. [0048], lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include adhering rubber pads together via thermal fusion as taught by Powell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving adhesion since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, wherein the rubber pad includes:
the lower rubber pad (3) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) having a bottom surface with which the attaching nonwoven fabric (lower layer 2) comes in close contact (as seen in Fig. 1, lower layer 2 comes into contact with bottom surface of 3) and an upper surface (the location of upper layer 2, which is connected to the upper surface of 3) on which the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is mounted; and
wherein the upper rubber pad (4) is provided as one (as seen in Fig. 1, there is one upper pad 4) or more upper rubber pads which are sequentially stacked, and the rubber pad (2-4) is formed of multiple layers (as seen in Fig. 1).
Ortwein does not teach the upper rubber pad adhered to the lower rubber pad by a thermal fusion process.
Powell teaches a thermal fusion process (para. [0048], lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include adhering rubber pads together via thermal fusion as taught by Powell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving adhesion since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 16, wherein, in a state in which the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is horizontally embedded (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) between (the upper layer 2 between layers 3 and 4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) the lower rubber pad (3) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) and the upper rubber pad (4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1).
Ortwein does not teach the lower rubber pad and the upper rubber pad are adhered to each other by a thermal fusion process.
Powell teaches a thermal fusion process (para. [0048], lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include adhering rubber pads together via thermal fusion as taught by Powell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving adhesion since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortwein (US 4720043 A) in view of Potocan (US 20100320281 A1), Powell (US 20120219746 A1), Lehmann (US 20180370063 A1), Whitehead (US 20220002088 A1), and Hwang (KR 20190115293 A).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan, Powell, and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 5.
Ortwein does not teach wherein, in a process in which the lower rubber pad in close contact with the attaching nonwoven fabric is heated and pressed, the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad are entangled on a close contact surface, thus coming in close contact and being mechanically coupled.
Lehmann teaches wherein, in a process in which the lower rubber pad (para. [0087], lines 4-5) in close contact (as seen in Figs. 1, 2) with the attaching nonwoven fabric (para. [0087], lines 1-4) is heated and pressed (para. [0090]), the attaching nonwoven fabric (para. [0087], lines 1-4) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0087], lines 4-5) are entangled on a close contact surface, thus coming in close contact and being mechanically coupled (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a heating and pressing process as taught by Lehmann with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing imperfections in the rubber pad (see Lehmann, para. [0091], lines 4-8).
Ortwein does not teach wherein the lower rubber pad and attaching nonwoven fabric are chemically bonded as the close contact surface between the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad is melted and diffused due to vulcanization, thus allowing the attaching nonwoven fabric to be integrated with the bottom surface of the lower rubber pad.
Whitehead teaches wherein the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5) and attaching nonwoven fabric (31) (Fig. 2) are chemically bonded (para. [0085], lines 6-14) as the close contact surface between the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5) is melted and diffused due to vulcanization (para. [0085], lines 6-14), thus allowing the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) to be integrated with the bottom surface of the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a vulcanization process as taught by Whitehead with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the rubber pad since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 16.
Ortwein does not teach wherein, in a process in which the lower rubber pad in close contact with the attaching nonwoven fabric is heated and pressed, the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad are allowed to be entangled on a close contact surface, thus coming in close contact and mechanically coupled.
Lehmann teaches wherein, in a process in which the lower rubber pad (para. [0087], lines 4-5) in close contact (as seen in Figs. 1, 2) with the attaching nonwoven fabric (para. [0087], lines 1-4) is heated and pressed (para. [0090]), the attaching nonwoven fabric (para. [0087], lines 1-4) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0087], lines 4-5) are allowed to be entangled on a close contact surface, thus coming in close contact and mechanically coupled (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a heating and pressing process as taught by Lehmann with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing imperfections in the rubber pad (see Lehmann, para. [0091], lines 4-8).
Ortwein does not teach wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad being chemically bonded as the close contact surface between the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad is melted and diffused by vulcanization, the attaching nonwoven fabric is integrated with the bottom surface of the lower rubber pad.
Whitehead teaches wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) (Fig. 2) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5) being chemically bonded (para. [0085], lines 6-14) as the close contact surface between the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5) is melted and diffused by vulcanization (para. [0085], lines 6-14), the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) is integrated with the bottom surface of the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a vulcanization process as taught by Whitehead with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the rubber pad since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortwein (US 4720043 A) in view of Potocan (US 20100320281 A1), Cho (KR 102212757 B1), and Hwang (KR 20190115293 A).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric (2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) is embedded in a surface on the concrete placed in the sleeper formwork (Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16), and in a process in which the concrete for manufacturing the concrete sleeper is cured (Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16), the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is attached to the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 3).
Ortwein does not teach a pressing plate.
Cho teaches a pressing plate (para. [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a pressing plate as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the ease of manufacturing since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
While Ortwein does not explicitly teach the nonwoven fabric integrated sleeper pad is set with an equivalent pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed the nonwoven fabric integrated sleeper pad with equivalent pressure with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring the sleeper is level and not offset from the pad being uneven, 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).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 16.
wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric (2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) is embedded in a surface on the concrete placed in the sleeper formwork (Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16), and in a process in which the concrete for manufacturing the concrete sleeper is cured (Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16), the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is attached to the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 3).
Ortwein does not teach a pressing plate.
Cho teaches a pressing plate (para. [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a pressing plate as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the ease of manufacturing since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
While Ortwein does not explicitly teach the nonwoven fabric integrated sleeper pad is set with an equivalent pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed the nonwoven fabric integrated sleeper pad with equivalent pressure with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring the sleeper is level and not offset from the pad being uneven, 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).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortwein (US 4720043 A) in view of Potocan (US 20100320281 A1) Miessbacher (US 20160194835 A1), and Hwang (KR 20190115293 A).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan and Hwang above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1.
Ortwein does not teach for the rubber pad, an ethylene propylene diene monomer compounded rubber is formed into a thin sheet plate.
Miessbacher teaches the rubber pad formed from an ethylene propylene diene monomer compound rubber (para. [0009], liens 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include manufacturing EPDM with rubber as taught by Miessbacher with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the stiffness of the rail pad (see Miessbacher, para. [0010]).
While Ortwein does not explicitly teach wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric having a surface made of a dense material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nonwoven fabric being made of a dense material with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the nonwoven fiber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortwein (US 4720043 A) in view of Potocan (US 20100320281 A1), Miessbacher (US 20160194835 A1), Song (KR 20040095408 A), Sears (US 20070290061 A1), Powell (US 20120219746 A1), Lehmann (US 20180370063 A1), Whitehead (US 20220002088 A1), Prud’homme (WO 2022069512 A1), and Hwang (KR 20190115293 A).
In regards to claim 11, Ortwein teaches a method of manufacturing a nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad (10) (Fig. 1) using a rubber pad (2-4), the method comprising: bringing the attaching nonwoven fabric (lower layer 2) in close contact with a bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 1, layer 2 is connected to bottom surface of 3) of the rubber pad (2-4).
Ortwein does not teach the rubber pad embedded with a stiffener; mounting and adhering a lattice-shaped stiffener onto the lower rubber pad; wherein the stiffener is horizontally embedded in the rubber pad to resist horizontal deformation of the rubber pad and increase vertical stiffness.
Potocan teaches the rubber pad (1) (Fig. 3) embedded with a stiffener (5) (Fig. 2); mounting and adhering a lattice-shaped (as seen in Fig. 2) stiffener (5) onto the lower rubber pad (6); wherein the stiffener (5) is horizontally embedded (as seen in Fig. 1) in the rubber pad (1) to resist horizontal deformation (para. [0013]) of the rubber pad (1) and increase vertical stiffness (para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a stiffener as taught by Potocan with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the sleeper pad (see Potocan, para. [0013]).
Ortwein does not teach manufacturing ethylene propylene diene monomer compounded rubber in which EPDM and rubber are mixed with a mixer.
Miessbacher teaches manufacturing ethylene propylene diene monomer compounded rubber in which EPDM and rubber are mixed with a mixer (para. [0009], lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include manufacturing EPDM with rubber in a mixer as taught by Miessbacher with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the stiffness of the rail pad (see Miessbacher, para. [0010])
Ortwein does not teach winding an attaching nonwoven fabric having a surface made of a dense material around a roll.
Song teaches winding an attaching nonwoven fabric (30) (Fig. 8) around a roll (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonwoven fabric of Ortwein to include winding the nonwoven fabric around a roll as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of manufacturing in relation to the nonwoven fabric (see machine translation, Song, para. [19]).
While Ortwein in view of Song does not explicitly teach the nonwoven fabric being made of a dense material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nonwoven fabric being made of a dense material with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the nonwoven fiber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Ortwein does not teach manufacturing a lower rubber pad and an upper rubber pad by forming a thin plate in which the ethylene propylene diene monomer compounded rubber is formed into a sheet through a calendering process.
Sears teaches manufacturing a lower rubber pad (para. [0047], lines 7-8) and an upper rubber pad (para. [0047], lines 7-8) by forming a thin plate (para. [0047], lines 5-7) in which the ethylene propylene diene monomer compounded rubber (para. [0047], lines 1-4) is formed into a sheet through a calendering process (para. [0047], lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include forming sheets through a calendaring process as taught by Sears with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving control of the thickness of the rubber pad (see para. [0060], lines 8-10).
Ortwein does not teach forming a rubber pad embedded with the stiffener by adhering the upper rubber pad to the lower rubber pad by a thermal fusion process
Powell teaches a thermal fusion process (para. [0048], lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include adhering rubber pads together via thermal fusion as taught by Powell with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving adhesion since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Ortwein does not teach by, through a rotor curing process, heating and pressing the lower rubber pad in close contact with the attaching nonwoven fabric, allowing the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad to be entangled on a close contact surface and mechanically coupled.
Lehmann teaches a rotor curing process (para. [0090]), heating and pressing the lower rubber pad (para. [0087], lines 4-5) in close contact (as seen in Figs. 1, 2) with the attaching nonwoven fabric (para. [0087], lines 1-4), allowing the attaching nonwoven fabric (para. [0087], lines 1-4) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0087], lines 4-5) to be entangled on a close contact surface and mechanically coupled (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a roto curing process as taught by Lehmann with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing imperfections in the rubber pad (see Lehmann, para. [0091], lines 4-8).
Ortwein does not teach allowing the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad to be integrated by a chemical bonding process as the close contact surface between the attaching nonwoven fabric and the lower rubber pad is melted and diffused due to vulcanization.
Whitehead teaches allowing the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) (Fig. 2) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5) to be integrated by a chemical bonding process (para. [0085], lines 6-14) as the close contact surface between the attaching nonwoven fabric (31) and the lower rubber pad (para. [0085], lines 1-5) is melted and diffused due to vulcanization (para. [0085], lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include a vulcanization process as taught by Whitehead with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the rubber pad since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Ortwein does not teach cutting the rubber pad in a predetermined size to form the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad.
Prud’homme teaches cutting (see machine translation, para. [0083]) the rubber pad in a predetermined size (para. [0083]) to form the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include cutting the rubber pad into shape as taught by Prud’homme with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the environmental impact by recycling the excess (see Prud’homme, para. [0021], lines 6-8).
Ortwein does not teach the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded by being pressed toward a surface of concrete placed in a sleeper formwork, and as the placed concrete is cured, the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in a bottom surface of the concrete sleeper to secure an attaching force with the concrete sleeper
Potocan teaches the attaching nonwoven fabric (7) (Fig. 3) is embedded by being pressed toward a surface of concrete placed in a sleeper formwork (para. [0019], lines 9-16), and as the placed concrete is cured (para. [0019], lines 9-16), the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad (1) is embedded (para. [0019], lines 9-16) in a bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3) of the concrete sleeper (2) to secure an attaching force with the concrete sleeper (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rubber pad of Ortwein to include the rubber pad exposed to the bottom surface of a concrete sleeper wherein the attaching nonwoven fabric is embedded by being pressed towards a surface of the concrete as the placed concrete is cured as taught by Potocan with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the connection between the rubber pad and sleeper (see Potocan, para. [0019], lines 9-16).
While Ortwein does not explicitly teach wherein the rubber pad may be cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper.
Hwang teaches wherein the rubber pad (410) may be cut to be apart from an end (as seen in Fig. 7) of the concrete sleeper (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rubber pad of Ortwein being cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper as taught by Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing damage to the rubber pad as needed, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan, Miessbacher, Song, Sears, Powell, Lehmann, Whitehead, Prud’homme, and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is formed of a lattice-shaped (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 2) glass fiber (Potocan, para. [0035], lines 20-23) and is provided as one or more stiffeners (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) horizontally disposed (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) in a middle (at the location of the upper layer 2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) of the rubber pad (2-4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan, Miessbacher, Song, Sears, Powell, Lehmann, Whitehead, Prud’homme, and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is horizontally mounted (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) on an upper portion (at the location of the upper layer 2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) of the lower rubber pad (3) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) of the rubber pad (2-4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) and is adhered using an adhesive.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan, Miessbacher, Song, Sears, Powell, Lehmann, Whitehead, Prud’homme, and Hwang above teaches the method of claim 11, wherein, in a state in which the stiffener (5) (Potocan, Fig. 2) is horizontally embedded (Potocan, as seen in Fig. 1) between (at the location of the upper layer 2) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) the lower rubber pad (3) (Ortwein, Fig. 1) and the upper rubber pad (4) (Ortwein, Fig. 1), the lower rubber pad and the upper rubber pad are adhered to each other by a thermal fusion process (Powell, para. [0048], lines 12-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 7. While the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, Ortwein fails to teach an intermediate connecting portion disposed between expansion flanges at both ends, and the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad which is exposed only to bottom surfaces of the expansion flanges at both ends comes in contact with gravel. The examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of Ortwein to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 7 is non-obvious in view of the prior art but is still objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 9. While the combination of Ortwein as modified by Potocan above teaches the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of claim 1, Ortwein fails to teach wherein the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is attached only to a portion where a load is intensively transmitted by a rail, and by performing a rounding treatment on a corner portion of the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad, an attaching force with the concrete sleeper is secured. The examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad of Ortwein to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 9 is non-obvious in view of the prior art but is still objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 are rejected under new grounds as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
The Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach wherein the rubber pad is positioned spaced apart from the end of the concrete sleeper. The Examiner responds in disagreement and cites the rejections stated above for claims 1, 11, and 15. Furthermore, the claimed limitation recites that the rubber pad “may be cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper,” the rubber pad of the prior art is able to be configured in such a way that it may be cut to be apart from an end of the concrete sleeper.
The Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach wherein “the nonwoven fabric-integrated sleeper pad is embedded in the bottom surface of the concrete sleeper as the placed concrete is cured.” The Examiner responds in disagreement and cites Potocan, para. [0019], as recited in the rejections above, “place the tie foundation… onto the concrete not yet completely cured.”
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 JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (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/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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615