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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to for improper dependency because it is a multiple dependent claim that refers, in the alternative, to claims 1–22, including canceled claims 14–16. A claim should not refer to a canceled claim. Please amend claim 23 to depend only from extant claims, for example, “as defined in any one of claims 1–13 and 17–22,” or present separate dependent claims to the specific bases you intend to maintain.
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to for inconsistent terminology. Each recites “upper track,” whereas claim 1 establishes “upper rail track.” Please amend claims 3 and 5 to “upper rail track” for consistency, or introduce “upper track” with proper antecedent basis as a defined synonym.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to for terminology. The specification uses “program logic controller (PLC),” but the established term in the art is “programmable logic controller.” Please consider amending to “programmable logic controller (PLC)” in claims 19 and 20 and in the specification for consistency. This is an informal matter; if you maintain “program logic controller,” please confirm that no different controller type is intended.
Claims 7, 9, 11, and 13 are objected to for clarity of listing. The phrase “one or more of: a hydraulic, pneumatic, pulley, spring, gearing, electric, chain and sprocket, or magnetic actuator” mixes “one or more of” with an “or” list, which can read ambiguously. Consider amending to “one or more actuators selected from the group consisting of hydraulic, pneumatic, pulley, spring, gearing, electric, chain-and-sprocket, and magnetic actuators.”
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 12 are objected to for minor drafting consistency. Where the claims recite “single rail track,” ensure that the same construct is used throughout and that any vertical switch embodiments consistently specify which track remains in constant communication with the single rail track, as taught in the specification, to avoid interpretive ambiguity.
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 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, and 19 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.
INDEFINITENESS — LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR “UPPER TRACK SECTION” IN CLAIMS 10 AND 12
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The phrases “upper track section” in claims 10 and 12 lack antecedent basis. Earlier claims consistently use “upper rail track” or “ramp rail track section.” Introduction of a different term (“upper track section”) creates uncertainty as to whether a different structure is intended. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Suggested amendment: Replace “upper track section” with “upper rail track” in each occurrence in claims 10 and 12. If a distinct sub-portion is intended, introduce it with proper antecedent basis, for example, “an upper rail track section (‘upper rail track section’) … wherein the ramp rail section is connected to the upper rail track section ….”
INDEFINITENESS — LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR “THE RAMP” IN CLAIMS 6 AND 8
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Each claim first introduces “an elevator ramp rail track section” and then recites a “disengaged position wherein the ramp is raised….” The definite article “the ramp” lacks antecedent basis because the only prior reference is to “the elevator ramp rail track section.” Substituting a different term introduces ambiguity as to the structure whose height changes. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Suggested amendment: In claims 6 and 8, replace “the ramp is raised” with “the elevator ramp rail track section is raised.” Make similar edits wherever “the ramp” appears without antecedent basis.
INDEFINITENESS — “AND/OR” CONSTRUCTION IN CLAIM 19
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite due to the use of “and/or” in “wherein the actuators and/or the switches are controlled by a program logic controller.” The “and/or” formulation renders the scope uncertain as to whether both, either, or any subset must be controlled. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Suggested amendment: Replace “and/or” with clear alternatives. For example, “wherein the actuators and the switches are controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC)” or “wherein at least one of the actuators and the switches is controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC).” If two distinct embodiments are intended, separate them into different dependent claims.
INDEFINITENESS — TERM OF DEGREE AND AMBIGUOUS REFERENCE IN CLAIM 18
Claim(s) 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. The limitation “each about 1.5 times longer than a length of a train for using the bypass” includes (i) the term of degree “about” and (ii) an ambiguous referent “a train.” Without objective boundaries, it is unclear whether the length is keyed to the longer of the two trains, a nominal design train, or any train. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) and § 2173.02.
Suggested amendment: Provide an objective anchor and remove ambiguity. For example, “each between 1.4 and 1.6 times the length of the longest train configured to use the bypass” or “each at least 1.5 times the design train length specified for the system.” If a specific design train is defined in the specification, incorporate that definition by claim language.
INDEFINITENESS — INCONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY FOR TRACK ELEMENTS IN CLAIMS 3, 5, 10, AND 12
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The claims use “upper rail track,” “upper track,” and “upper track section” interchangeably. Similar inconsistency exists between “ramp rail track section” and “ramp.” This inconsistent nomenclature creates uncertainty as to whether different structures are intended. See MPEP § 2173.02 and § 2173.05(e).
Suggested amendment: Harmonize terminology throughout the claims. Replace “upper track” and “upper track section” with “upper rail track,” and replace “ramp” with “ramp rail track section,” unless distinct structures are intended, in which case add proper antecedent introductions for each distinct term.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1: U.S. Patent No. 3,752,334 to Robinson et al. (“Robinson”) — Industrial bulk material transportation apparatus with side-plate friction drive stations, parallel tracks, cross-over arrangements, and elevated track sections associated with ramps and looped unloading structures.
REFERENCE 2: DE 10 2015 001 441 A1 to SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co KG (“DE ’441”) — Rail transport system detailing vehicle-guided switching using actuated guide mechanisms to select between tracks at a junction (Weiche), including specific actuator and guide components.
REFERENCE 3: ES 2 638 200 A1 (“FCC ’200”) — Railway rail transfer/lifting system with a continuous transfer element 20 actuated by a linkage system 21 and actuator 22 that raises a rail to a higher position during transfer.
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.
CLAIMS 1–5, 10-13, and 17–23: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
──────────
A rail bypass arrangement for use with a rail transport system for conveying bulk materials and allowing bypass of a first train and a second train, the rail bypass arrangement comprising: a lower rail track having a downdrift (extraction) end and an updrift (collection) end; an upper rail track having a downdrift (extraction) end and an updrift (collection) end; an updrift track switch in communication with the updrift end of the lower rail track and the updrift end of the upper rail track, the updrift track switch comprising an actuator for guiding a train to either the upper rail track or the lower rail track; a downdrift track switch in communication with the downdrift end of the lower rail track and the downdrift end of the upper rail track, the downdrift track switch comprising an actuator for guiding a train to either the upper rail track or the lower rail track; and a first drive station positioned between the downdrift track switch and the updrift track switch for moving the first train on the lower track and a second drive station positioned between the downdrift track switch and the updrift track switch for moving the second train on the upper track.
Analysis:
Lower and upper rail tracks; arrangement allowing two trains to bypass. Robinson discloses a bulk-material rail system with a main track (rails 2) and an elevated track section (101) accessible via a ramp (100) and movable tilt structure (104) with rails (107), where the main track extends continuously under that elevated section (trestle 102). The elevated track and the underlying main track provide vertically separated, coextensive rail paths in the same footprint; Robinson further teaches parallel inbound/outbound operation, cross-overs for selective routing, and “two tracks side-by-side for trains moving in opposite directions,” with the driving station adapted accordingly. These teachings collectively provide an “upper rail track” and a “lower rail track” in a grade-separated bypass segment capable of permitting one consist to use the elevated path while another proceeds on the lower path beneath it.
Updrift and downdrift track switches each with an actuator guiding a train between upper and lower tracks. Robinson teaches track junctions and selective routing using conventional switches (see the double cross-over arrangement and parallel branches feeding the elevated section), but does not detail the actuator that guides a vehicle between stacked levels. DE ’441 supplies that missing detail at a junction: a guided switching mechanism with vehicle-mounted actuated elements interacting with track-side profiles and a cam to direct a vehicle onto one of two diverging tracks. The actuator and guide components in DE ’441 are expressly for “selectively guiding” a vehicle through a switch to one of plural tracks and are directly pertinent to “an actuator for guiding a train to either the upper rail track or the lower rail track.”
First and second drive stations between the switches, each moving a train on a respective track. Robinson teaches side-plate friction drive stations with motor 40, drive wheel 42, idler 42′, frames 30/31/32, and further provides multi-track installations where a driving station serves adjacent tracks (see the two-wheel arrangement configured for trains moving in opposite directions). Robinson also teaches drive station placement “at intervals along the trackway,” including placement appropriate for stacked or parallel tracks. Using one drive station on the lower track segment and another on the elevated track segment within the bypass segment is a straightforward application of Robinson’s drive station siting to the grade-separated section.
Motivation to combine for claim 1: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bulk-material rail haulage to implement Robinson’s vertical “track-on-track” segment as a compact bypass facilitating simultaneous movements and to equip the updrift and downdrift ends with switch mechanisms that include actuators as taught by DE ’441 to positively guide a train to the selected of two alternative tracks. The predictable benefit is reliable, controllable routing between co-located stacked tracks while preserving the small footprint that Robinson already values. The combination merely uses a known switch actuation technique (DE ’441) at the known switching points of Robinson’s system, yielding no change in operating principle and providing the expected improvement in route selection control. See KSR (use of known elements according to their established functions to yield predictable results).
──────────
The rail bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the updrift track switch further comprises: a side-by-side rail track junction of a dual rail track into a single rail track having a downdrift side and an updrift side, the updrift side having the single rail track, the downdrift side having the dual rail track, the dual rail track comprising an inward rail track in communication with the upper rail track and an outward rail track in communication with the lower rail track, the actuator situated for guiding an inward bound train from the single track to the inward rail track and permitting passage of an outward bound train from the outward track to the single track.
Analysis:
Robinson depicts side-by-side branches and a double cross-over feeding and returning from the grade-separated section, which constitute a dual-track-to-single-track junction and vice versa, including selection of “either direction” approach to the elevated path via a cross-over. These side-by-side portions (parallel tracks) flanking the ramp/elevated segment inherently meet the “dual rail track into a single rail track” junctioning at the ends of the bypass segment. DE ’441 supplies the specific “actuator situated for guiding” through the switch to the chosen branch of the dual track, satisfying the actuator placement and function.
Motivation to combine for claim 2: Using DE ’441’s guided actuation at Robinson’s updrift end junction is a routine substitution of one known switching control for another in a predictable way to improve selection accuracy and reduce misrouting at the side-by-side-to-single junction.
──────────
The rail bypass arrangement of claim 2, wherein the rail bypass arrangement further comprises: a ramp rail track section in communication with the upper rail track and the inward rail track of the updrift switch; and a curved rail track section in communication with the lower rail track and the outward rail track of the updrift switch for side-by-side bypass of the ramp rail section, the curved rail track section having rail tracks curved to pass around the ramp rail section and below the upper track.
Analysis:
Robinson provides an up-ramp (100) into an elevated straight stretch (101) and movable section (104) with rails (107). Robinson also shows, in plan (see the parallel tracks 157 and 158 and the double cross-over 159), that side-by-side track approaches to the elevated segment are used, necessarily including curved segments that route around structures to maintain clearances. At the updrift end, this naturally yields a curved branch on the lower path that passes around the elevated ramp structure while remaining below it, in order to maintain the side-by-side approach and provide clearance for the ramped path. DE ’441 provides the guided switch actuation to select the inward branch feeding the ramp versus the outward branch feeding the curved lower path.
Motivation to combine for claim 3: It is a common civil track-alignment practice to offset a lower, through path around a ramped, rising path leading to an elevated structure, using a curved alignment to preserve clearances and maintain side-by-side geometry. Combining Robinson’s ramped elevated section with such a curved lower bypass at the approach—and controlling the choice using DE ’441’s actuated switching—would have been an obvious route-geometry optimization with predictable benefits in footprint reduction.
──────────
The rail bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the downdrift track switch further comprises: a side-by-side rail track junction of a dual rail track into a single rail track having a downdrift side and an updrift side, the downdrift side having the single rail track, the updrift side having the dual rail track, the dual rail track comprising an inward rail track in communication with the upper rail track and an outward rail track in communication with the lower rail track, the actuator situated for guiding an outward bound train from the single rail track to the outward rail track and permitting passage of an inbound train from the inward track to the single track.
Analysis:
Robinson’s depiction of parallel tracks leading to and from the elevated section, together with a cross-over, provides the dual-track side and a single-track side in the opposite direction. As with claim 2, DE ’441 provides the guided actuator at the switch to direct outward-bound traffic to the lower path and inbound traffic from the upper path to the single track.
Motivation to combine for claim 4: Same as for claim 2, applied at the downdrift end. Skilled artisans would replicate guided switch actuation at both ends to achieve consistent, controllable routing in both directions.
──────────
The rail bypass arrangement of claim 4, wherein the rail bypass arrangement further comprises: a ramp rail track section in communication with the upper rail track and the inward rail track of the downdrift switch; and a curved rail track section in communication with the lower rail track and the outward rail track of the downdrift switch for side-by-side bypass of the ramp rail section, the curved rail track section having rail tracks curved to pass around the ramp rail section and below the upper track.
Analysis:
The same geometric relationship as in claim 3 applies at the opposite end of the bypass: Robinson’s elevated segment returns to the main track via a ramp, with the lower path continuing beneath and curving around the ramp footprint to remain side-by-side. DE ’441’s guided actuator again furnishes the selection between inward (upper) and outward (lower) branches.
Motivation to combine for claim 5: Same as for claim 3, applied symmetrically to the opposite end of the bypass to maintain consistent geometry and clearances.
────────── 10. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the updrift track switch comprises: a lower rail track section having a downdrift end in communication with the updrift end of the lower rail track and an updrift end in communication with a single rail track; and a pivoting ramp rail track section moveable between:
an engaged position wherein a downdrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the updrift end of the upper rail track and an updrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the single rail track; and
a disengaged position wherein the updrift end is raised upward and disengaged from the single rail track at a height sufficient to allow a train to pass underneath the raised ramp section, and wherein the ramp rail section is connected to the upper track section with a hinged or pivotal connection that allows movement between the engaged position and the disengaged position. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Lower rail track section to single rail track. Degen ’441 shows a dual-to-single switch region with Y-shaped geometry (plate 15) where the single-track portion 106 communicates to the split rails 6, 7 forming the two legs; this is a standard “switch” context establishing how a lower rail section communicates with a single track at the switch location.
Pivoting ramp rail track section, hinged to upper track, engaged and disengaged. Robinson squarely teaches a pivoting ramp track section: the mobile unit 130 carries an adjustable extension 143 hinged at 142 and provided with track sections 146; the free rail end 150 couples to the single track 2 via shoe 152 when engaged. The extension 143 is raised and lowered by cable 144 over sheave 145; when raised, the updrift end is disengaged from rail 2, and trains can continue on the ground-level track 2 under the raised ramp because the main track extends continuously under the unit. This meets the “hinged or pivotal connection,” the “engaged” state (rails 146/150 aligned on rail 2 via shoe 152, upper end communicating with elevated track 147), and the “disengaged/raised” state that allows passage beneath.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 10
A person of ordinary skill would have used the standard switch region of Degen ’441 to feed Robinson’s pivoting ramp end because both references address directing traffic between a single track and a special/alternate path; combining a known switch geometry (106, 6, 7, 15) with a known pivoting ramp connection (142, 143, 146, 150, 152, 144, 145) yields the predictable result of a switch that selectively engages a higher track and otherwise allows the lower single track to remain unobstructed. This is a simple aggregation of familiar components serving their established functions (MPEP § 2143).
────────── 12. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the downdrift track switch comprises: a lower rail track section having an updrift end in communication with the downdrift end of the lower rail track and a downdrift end in communication with a single rail track; and a pivoting ramp rail track section moveable between:
an engaged position wherein an updrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the downdrift end of the upper rail track and a downdrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the single rail track; and
a disengaged position wherein the downdrift end is raised upward and disengaged from the single rail track at a height sufficient to allow a train to pass underneath the raised ramp section, and wherein the ramp rail section is connected to the upper track section with a hinged or pivotal connection that allows movement between the engaged position and the disengaged position. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Robinson discloses the same pivoted-ramp arrangement at the opposite end of the unit. The extension 143 on the other side is likewise hinged at 142 and carries rails 146 that, when engaged, communicate the single rail 2 to the elevated loop 147; the end is raised with the same hoist 144/145 to disengage and permit trains to continue underneath on track 2. Degen ’441 again provides the switch context for communicating a lower rail section to a single track in a dual/single junction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 12
Implementing the mirror-image hinged ramp at the opposite (downdrift) switch end is an obvious duplication of Robinson’s arrangement, and using standard dual-to-single switchwork as in Degen ’441 to feed that hinged ramp is a routine integration yielding the expected, symmetric bypass functionality.
────────── 13. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 12, wherein the movement is executed by one or more of a hydraulic actuator, pneumatic actuator, pulley actuator, spring actuator, gearing actuator, electric actuator, chain and sprocket actuator, or magnetic actuator. ──────────
ANALYSIS
As for claim 11, Robinson’s pulley/electric hoist (144, 145; winch from cab 130a) provides an explicit actuator set, and alternative actuation (e.g., hydraulic or pneumatic) is a known equivalent.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 13
The choice of actuator package for the mirrored hinged ramp is a predictable design substitution to meet application constraints (power availability, maintenance, speed), and thus would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
──────────
The bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the upper rail track is adapted to accommodate an inward or unloaded train, and the lower rail track is adapted to accommodate the outward or loaded train.
Analysis:
Robinson teaches heavy-load management and drive/braking strategies along grades and discusses arrangements where trains moving in opposite directions use different paths, including situations where grades and drive station spacing are tuned to the load. Assigning the heavier, loaded movement to the ground-level track while sending the lighter, unloaded movement over the elevated segment is a known, predictable optimization of support and structural demands in grade-separated or parallel-track systems, entirely consistent with Robinson’s teachings on drive station loads and layout. This is a matter of allocation of traffic rather than novel structure.
Motivation to combine for claim 17: A person of ordinary skill would assign heavier trains to the ground-level path and lighter trains to the elevated path in Robinson’s bypass to reduce structure and bracing demands and to simplify installation and maintenance, which are predictable advantages widely appreciated in rail civil design.
──────────
The bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the upper rail track and the lower rail track are each about 1.5 times longer than a length of a train for using the bypass.
Analysis:
Robinson recognizes that drive station spacing and track segment lengths are engineered based on train lengths and operational needs. Sizing the bypass length to exceed the train length so two trains can pass without stopping is a routine design choice; selecting “about 1.5×” is a result-effective optimization to ensure clearances at the switches and drive station engagement. Nothing in this numerical choice produces an unexpected result.
Motivation to combine for claim 18: Routine optimization of segment length relative to train length to ensure full containment of a train within the bypass for continuous flow and safety clearances.
──────────
The bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the actuators and/or the switches are controlled by a program logic controller.
Analysis:
Robinson contemplates remote operation of switches and centralized control of train positions and drive stations. Substituting a programmable logic controller (PLC) to implement the remote control taught by Robinson and to coordinate DE ’441’s guided switch selection is a straightforward modernization that involves applying a known control platform to known controlled elements.
Motivation to combine for claim 19: Using a PLC to coordinate switch actuators and drive/braking elements is a predictable substitution of one known control technology for another to improve reliability and integration.
──────────
The bypass arrangement of claim 19, wherein the program logic controller also controls the operation of the drive stations to control the speed of the trains in the system.
Analysis:
Robinson’s drive stations are already described as being used for both propulsion and braking, and Robinson contemplates centralized control of train movement and drive station operation. Extending PLC control to drive station speed regulation is the expected and predictable implementation of that centralized control concept.
Motivation to combine for claim 20: Integrating drive station speed control into the same PLC that governs switch actuation reduces system complexity and provides synchronized movement and safe spacing—predictable benefits.
──────────
The bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first drive station and the second drive station are comprised in a dual drive station.
Analysis:
Robinson expressly depicts driving arrangements suited to two adjacent tracks, including a configuration with two motor-driven wheels arranged to act on trains on side-by-side tracks and a dual drive unit. Such an arrangement is a “dual drive station” comprising two drive subassemblies servicing two tracks.
Motivation to combine for claim 21: If the upper and lower tracks are co-located longitudinally through a bypass section, consolidating the lower-track and upper-track drive subassemblies into a dual station reduces footprint and cabling, a predictable engineering consolidation.
──────────
The bypass arrangement of claim 21, wherein the dual drive station is an integrated dual drive station with the first and second drive stations mounted vertically above one another.
Analysis:
Robinson’s dual-track driving station teaches co-locating multiple drive wheels for adjacent tracks in a common station structure. Mounting the two drive subassemblies in vertical alignment (one above the other) is a predictable variant of that co-location to suit vertical (stacked) tracks rather than side-by-side tracks. The adaptation requires no change in the operating principle of the drive wheels or their interaction with side-plates, and it addresses geometric constraints dictated by a stacked bypass.
Motivation to combine for claim 22: To minimize lateral footprint and directly engage stacked rails, an ordinarily skilled engineer would vertically stack the two drive subassemblies within a single frame—an arrangement that simply reorients known modules to match the vertical geometry.
──────────
A rail transport system for conveying bulk materials on a rail track comprising: a first train, a second train, and a bypass arrangement as defined in any one of claims 1 to 22 for permitting the first train to bypass the second train on an upper and a lower track of the bypass arrangement.
Analysis:
This claim draws its patentability from the bypass arrangement already addressed. As explained above, Robinson provides the dual path with grade separation and drive infrastructure; DE ’441 supplies the guided switching actuation. Using that arrangement in a rail transport system with two trains to accomplish a bypass falls with the rejection of claim 1.
Motivation to combine for claim 23: Same as for claim 1; applying the combined features to a two-train system is the intended use.
======
CLAIMS 6–9 and 11: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF REFERENCE 3.
────────── 6. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the updrift track switch comprises: a lower rail track section having a downdrift end in communication with the updrift end of the lower rail track and an updrift end in communication with a single rail track; and an elevator ramp rail track section moveable between:
an engaged position wherein a downdrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the updrift end of the upper rail track and an updrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the single rail track; and
a disengaged position wherein the ramp is raised upward and disengaged from the single rail track at a height sufficient to allow the train to pass underneath the raised ramp section, and wherein the ramp rail section moves between the engaged and disengaged positions via an elevating actuator in connection with the ramp section. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Lower rail track section to single rail track. Robinson ’334 shows a main running track 2 that functions as the single track and interfaces to branch sections and special trackwork. In the unloading zone and track-on-track layouts, Robinson provides the single ground-level track 2 and branch/crossover geometry 157, 158, 159 that communicate to special sections and ramps; this geometry constitutes the “updrift track switch” region that communicates the lower path (ground-level track) to the single track 2. Elevator ramp rail track section; engaged state. Robinson’s mobile unit has an elevated loop track 147 and a hinged ramp/extension 143 carrying track sections 146 whose free rail ends 150 are held on the head of the ground-level rail 2 by a shoe 152 when engaged, thereby placing the lower (updrift-side) end of the ramp in communication with the single track 2 and the upper (downdrift-side) end in communication with the elevated track 147.
Elevator ramp rail track section; disengaged, raised to allow passage underneath. Robinson teaches that the main track 2 extends continuously under the mobile unit while the ramp/extension is adjusted by a cable 144 and sheave 145 on mast 145a; thus, when raised, the ramp is disengaged from the single track and traffic can continue on track 2 beneath the elevated components. The figures and text describing the track-on-track unloading section and mobile unit explicitly present “track extending continuously under the mobile unit,” which is the functional equivalent of “allow the train to pass underneath the raised ramp section.”
Elevating actuator. Robinson moves the pivoted ramp/extension 143 “up and down” with a hoisting arrangement using cable 144 routed over sheave 145 to a winch controlled from cab 130a, which is an elevating actuator in the sense of claim 6.
Express “elevator” implementation. To the extent claim 6 is read to require a primarily vertical lift, FCC ’200 shows a railway element being raised by a kinematic linkage 21 driven by an actuator 22 to elevate the rail. Adapting Foster’s ramp end (rails 146, 150) to use a vertical-elevating linkage/actuator as in 21/22 provides the same engaged/disengaged function with an elevating actuator.
Switch geometry confirmation. Degen ’441 depicts a dual-to-single switch region with a Y-shaped plate 15, split rails 6, 7, and a single-track portion 106 that communicates to side-by-side legs; this corroborates that the “updrift track switch” may be realized by standard dual-to-single junction geometry feeding a special ramp section.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 6
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, faced with Robinson’s hinged ramp/extension 143 that is already raised and lowered by an actuator (cable 144 over sheave 145), to implement the ramp end as a vertically “elevating” section using a conventional actuator/linkage such as FCC’s 21/22 to reduce the lateral sweep of a pure pivot and to increase overhead clearance in tight drifts while preserving the same engage/disengage function to the single track 2. This is a predictable substitution of one known lifting mechanism for another to achieve an expected improvement in clearance and footprint (MPEP § 2143).
────────── 7. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 6, wherein the elevating actuator is one or more of: a hydraulic, pneumatic, pulley, spring, gearing, electric, chain and sprocket, or magnetic actuator. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Robinson provides a pulley-based and electrically driven hoist: cable 144 over sheave 145 with a winch controlled from cab 130a, i.e., a pulley and electric actuator; the winch necessarily includes gearing. This directly supports “pulley,” “electric,” and “gearing.” FCC ’200’s actuator 22 is a generic powered actuator driving linkage 21, and in the rail industry such elevating actuators are routinely implemented as hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders, satisfying the enumerated alternatives.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 7
Selecting among known actuator types (pulley/winch, hydraulic, pneumatic, geared drives) to raise a small track section is a routine engineering choice driven by available power, maintenance preferences, and environment; substituting one for another would have been an obvious design optimization with predictable results (MPEP § 2144).
────────── 8. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 1, wherein the downdrift track switch comprises: a lower rail track section having an updrift end in communication with the downdrift end of the lower rail track and a downdrift end in communication with a single rail track; and an elevator ramp rail track section moveable between:
an engaged position wherein an updrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the downdrift end of the upper rail track and a downdrift end of the ramp rail track section is in communication with the single rail track; and
a disengaged position wherein the ramp is raised upward and disengaged from the single rail track at a height sufficient to allow the train to pass underneath the raised ramp section, and wherein the ramp rail section moves between the engaged and disengaged positions via an elevating actuator in connection with the ramp section. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Robinson provides the same functional geometry at the opposite side of the mobile unit: the elevated track 147 connects via a ramp end (rails 146) to the ground-level single track 2, and the ramp end is raised/lowered with the same hoist arrangement 144/145 while the single track 2 passes beneath the elevated structure when disengaged. The movable section 104 likewise provides two ramps 105, 106 that engage/disengage the main rail line. These teachings satisfy the mirrored “downdrift” variant of claim 8.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 8
Given Robinson’s symmetric in-and-out engagement at both ends (ramps 105 and 106; two pivoted ends 143 with rails 146), applying the same elevating-actuator arrangement on the “other” end of the bypass is an obvious mirror implementation that yields the identical engage/disengage function for the downdrift switch, with predictable results.
────────── 9. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 8, wherein the elevating actuator is one or more of: a hydraulic, pneumatic, pulley, spring, gearing, electric, chain and sprocket, or magnetic actuator. ──────────
ANALYSIS
As discussed for claim 7, Robinson’s hoist is pulley-based and powered, necessarily using gears, and FCC ’200 exemplifies an actuator 22 suitable for a vertical lift implementation. These alternatives satisfy the enumerated actuator options for the downdrift end as well.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 9
Applying the same known actuator options to the mirrored downdrift elevating section is a straightforward duplication of parts on the other end of the bypass module and would have been obvious to achieve symmetric operation.
────────── 11. The rail bypass arrangement of claim 10, wherein the movement is executed by one or more of a hydraulic actuator, pneumatic actuator, pulley actuator, spring actuator, gearing actuator, electric actuator, chain and sprocket actuator, or magnetic actuator. ──────────
ANALYSIS
Robinson’s pivoting extension is actuated by a cable 144 over sheave 145 to a winch controlled from cab 130a, i.e., a pulley/electric drive, and winches are geared, satisfying “pulley,” “gearing,” and “electric.” Using hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders to swing or over-center a hinged section is a routine alternative well within ordinary skill and consistent with the actuator 22 shown in FCC ’200.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 11
Substituting among well-known actuators to drive a hinged ramp is an obvious design choice based on load, speed, and maintenance constraints; the pulley/electric arrangement Robinson already discloses makes clear that different actuation packages may be used interchangeably to achieve the same motion with predictable results (MPEP § 2144).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613