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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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) 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi (JP200230201).
Regarding claim 19, Onishi teaches a bridge for a rail vehicle, comprising a track, which is formed from two parallel rails (54) and is provided for being driven on by the rail vehicle, and comprising a bridge beam (53), which supports the rails (54) of the track and is aligned transversely to a support profile (51) of the bridge, wherein the bridge beam (53) is supported by a height adjustment element (10,12) arranged between the support profile (51) and the bridge beam (53), and wherein at least one fastening device (55) is provided by means of which the position of the bridge beam (53) is fixed in relation to the height adjustment element (10,12), characterised in that the height adjustment element (10,12) is designed as a single-piece block, whose height is adapted to the distance between the support profile (51) and the bridge beam (53). Although Onishi doesn’t explicitly teach the height is adjusted by a material-removing process, the claim is directed to the apparatus and the height adjustment member meets the structural limitations of the claim. Further it is noted that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Onishi fails to teach the height adjusting element is made of a plastic-sand mixture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the height adjusting elements or bridge beam of Onishi out of a plastic-sand mixture, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 20, Onishi teaches the bridge beam (53) and the height adjustment element (10,12) are each manufactured from a plastic-based material (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 21, Onishi teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the material, from which the bridge beam is manufactured, consists of 10 - 65% by mass of thermally deformable plastic and as the remainder of sand mixed with the plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the bridge beam of Onishi consisting of 10 - 65% by mass of thermally deformable plastic and as the remainder of sand mixed with the plastic, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 22, Onishi teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the material of the height adjustment element consists of up to 65% by mass of sand and 35 - 100% by mass of plastic, with which, if present, the sand is mixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the height adjustment element of Onishi consisting of up to 65% by mass of sand and 35 - 100% by mass of plastic, with which, if present, the sand is mixed, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 23, Onishi teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the sand content of the material, of which the height adjustment element consists, is lower than the sand content of the material, of which the bridge beam consists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the height adjustment element of Onishi with a lower sand content than the bridge beam, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 24, Onishi teaches the height adjustment element (10,12) is mounted on the support profile (51) so as to be displaceable in the longitudinal direction of the support profile. The height adjustment element is capable of being displaced along the longitudinal direction of the support profile.
Regarding claim 25, Onishi teaches the height adjustment element (10,12) is guided so as to be displaceable on the support profile (51) in the longitudinal direction of the support profile. The height adjustment element is capable of being guided along the longitudinal direction of the support profile.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi (JP200230201) in view of Burwell (4,687,134).
Regarding claim 26, Onishi teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a counter bearing. Burwell teaches a bridge having a fastening device comprises a first counter bearing (21) a second counter bearing (20) provided on the bridge beam (18) and a tensioning means (16) which braces the counter bearings against one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first and second counter bearing on the fastening device of Onishi as taught by Burwell as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka (JPH04265301).
Regarding claim 35, Isaka teaches a method for assembling a bridge beam (103) on a support profile (101) of a bridge for a rail vehicle, provided that the upper side of the bridge beam is at a certain absolute target height when fully assembled (the upper side would inherently be at a target height according to manufacturer specifications when fully assembled), comprising the following work steps: a) providing a bridge beam (103); b) providing a height adjustment element (102) manufactured as a single- piece block c) determining the actual distance present between the underside of the bridge beam (103) and the upper side of the support profile (101) when the upper side of the bridge beam (103) is at the target height; d) shortening the height (paragraph [0003] [0024]) of the height adjustment element (102) effective in the assembly position between the underside of the bridge beam and the upper side of the support profile (101) by the difference determined in work step c) by means of material-removing processing of the height adjustment element (102); e) placing the height adjustment element (102), which is adapted in terms of its height, on the upper side of the support profile (101); f) placing the bridge beam (103) on the height adjustment element (102); g) fixing the bridge beam (103) to the height adjustment element (102). Isaka fails to explicitly teach the steps of determining a theoretical height and a maximum possible distance between the underside of the bridge and the upper side of the support profile, however, inherently, if the height adjustment member has material removed to adjust the bridge beam to the correct height then the height adjustment member has a height greater than the distance between the bridge beam and the support and the maximum possible distance which exists between the underside of the bridge beam and the upper side of the support profile. The examiner takes official notice that making a determination of target height and then adjusting the height adjusting member according to the target height and the actual distance between two structures is old and well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine how much material to remove from the blocks of Isaka as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-34 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Steinfeld teaches a railway bridge with a bridge beam and a support profile with a height adjustment device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, 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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 November 1, 2025