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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites “wherein two rotatably drivable screwing units are engaged simultaneously with one of the screw connections in each case.” It is unclear to Examiner to what Applicant is referring. Examiner recommends amending the limitation to “…with one of the screw connections when performing the at least one of tightening and loosening two screw connections.”
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 1-7, 9-11, 17-18 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino et al. (JP 2020084439 A) in view of Halladin et al. (WO 2019105744 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Fujino teaches an apparatus for track machining (100; Fig.1c), the apparatus comprising: a fastening device (11; Fig.1c); at least one machining device for compacting a track bed (30,31; Fig.1c); and at least one vibration decoupler (13; Fig.1c) with at least one of a stiffness and a damping to at least partially decouple said fastening device and said at least one machining device (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0029], lines 8-10). Fujino does not teach the vibration decoupler being adjustable.
However, Halladin teaches the use of an adjustable vibration decoupler for a vibrating machine (10; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustability of the vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Fujino does not teach an adjusting means that is in signal communication with said at least one vibration decoupler, for adjusting at least one of the stiffness and the damping.
However, Halladin teaches an adjusting means (13; Fig.1) that is in signal communication with said at least one vibration decoupler (10; Fig.1), for adjusting at least one of the stiffness and the damping (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustability of the vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3: Fujino does not teach a drive unit connected to said adjusting means for providing at least one of a fluidic and mechanical signal for automated adjustment of at least one of the stiffness and the damping.
However, Halladin teaches a drive unit connected to said adjusting means for providing a mechanical signal for automated adjustment of at least one of the stiffness and the damping (Para.[0075], lines 11-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustability of the vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Fujino further teaches the apparatus with at least one vibration coupler (13; Fig.1c) between said fastening device (11; Fig.1c) and said at least one machining device (31; Fig.1c). Fujino does not teach the vibration decoupler having a chamber filled with a fluid for at least proportional transmission of forces via the fluid.
However, Halladin teaches a vibration decoupler (13; Fig.1c) having a chamber filled with a fluid for at least proportional transmission of forces via the fluid (10; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5: Fujino does not teach wherein said chamber has a reversibly deformable chamber wall.
However, Halladin teaches wherein said chamber has a reversibly deformable chamber wall (air spring; 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6: Fujino does not teach a pressure regulating unit for controlling a pressure of the fluid in said chamber.
However, Halladin teaches a pressure regulating unit for controlling a pressure of the fluid in said chamber (11,13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7: Fujino does not teach wherein said at least one vibration decoupler has an adjustable throttle valve for limiting a flow of the fluid.
However, Halladin teaches wherein said at least one vibration decoupler has an adjustable throttle valve for limiting a flow of the fluid (13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Fujino further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one machine motor for providing power required for operating said at least one machining device (50; Fig.1c), said at least one machine motor is disposed with respect to said at least one vibration decoupler on a side of said at least one machining device (Fig.1a).
Regarding claim 10: Fujino further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said at least one machining device has a tamping unit for track bed treatment (30; Fig.1c).
Regarding claim 11: Fujino further teaches the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein said at least one machining device has a vibration generator for generating a vibratory movement (50; Fig.1c).
Regarding claim 17: Fujino further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a displacement device for at least one of displacing and pivoting said at least one machining device relative to said fastening device (40; Fig.1b).
Regarding claim 18: Fujino further teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising at least two tamping units being at least one of displaceable relative to one another and pivotable relative to one another by means of said displacement device (apparent from Fig.1b).
Regarding claim 24: Fujino teaches a method for operating an apparatus for track machining (100; Fig.1c), which comprises the steps of: providing at least one machining device (30,31; Fig.1c) disposed on a vibration decoupler (13; Fig.1c); and performing compacting a track bed by means of the at least one machining device (30; Fig.1c). Fujino does not teach adjusting the vibration decoupler between a first coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a first stiffness and a first damping, and a second coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a second stiffness different from the first stiffness and a second damping different from the first damping.
However, Halladin teaches adjusting the vibration decoupler (10; Fig.1) between a first coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a first stiffness and a first damping, and a second coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a second stiffness different from the first stiffness and a second damping different from the first damping (adjustment of throttle valve 13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25: Fujino further teaches the method according to claim 24, which comprises displacing the at least one machining device from a restoring position to a working position (12,40; Fig.1b). Fujino does not teach wherein the vibration decoupler is set to the first coupling state.
However, Halladin teaches wherein the vibration decoupler is set to the first coupling state (desired setting of 13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26: Fujino further teaches the method according to claim 24, which further comprises machining a track (Fig.5a). Fujino does not teach wherein the vibration decoupler is set to the second coupling state.
However, Halladin teaches wherein the vibration decoupler is set to the second coupling state (desired setting of 13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with the adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1, 12, 15-16, 19-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (WO 2017121441 A1) in view of Halladin.
Regarding claim 1: Schmid teaches an apparatus for track machining (Fig.2), the apparatus comprising: a fastening device (16; Fig.2); at least one machining device (17; Fig.2) for at least one of compacting a track bed and for tightening and loosening a screw connection (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0017], lines 6-8 and Para.[0018]). Schmid does not teach at least one vibration decoupler with at least one of an adjustable stiffness and an adjustable damping to at least partially decouple said fastening device and said at least one machining device.
However, Halladin teaches at least one vibration decoupler with at least one of an adjustable stiffness and an adjustable damping to at least partially decouple a fastening device and at least machining device of a vibrating machine (10; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with an adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said at least one machining device has a screwing unit for at least one of tightening and loosening the screw connection (Para.[0020]).
Regarding claim 15: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a feeding device for providing screw members (Para.[0020]).
Regarding claim 16: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said at least one machining device has a cutting tool for cutting off a screw bolt (Para.[0017], lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 19: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a positioning device (18,20; Fig.2), to which said fastening device (16; Fig.2) is attached, for positioning said at least one machining device on a track (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 20: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein said positioning device has a multi-axis robot to which said fastening device is attached (18; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 21: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein said positioning device has a carriage (3; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 22: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, further comprising a fixing unit (20; Fig.2) for detachably fixing said at least one machining device (17; Fig.2) to said carriage (3; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 23: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor for at least one of detecting at least one of a position and an orientation of an object to be machined of a track and for monitoring a working space (Para.[0021]).
Regarding claim 24: Schmid teaches a method for operating an apparatus for track machining, which comprises the steps of: providing at least one machining device (17; Fig.2); and performing at least one of compacting a track bed and tightening and loosening a screw connection by means of the at least one machining device (Para.[0017-0018]). Schmid does not teach at least one machining device disposed on a vibration decoupler; adjusting the vibration decoupler between a first coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a first stiffness and a first damping, and a second coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a second stiffness different from the first stiffness and a second damping different from the first damping.
However, Halladin teaches a vibration decoupler disposed on a vibrating machine(10; Fig.1); adjusting the vibration decoupler between a first coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a first stiffness and a first damping, and a second coupling state in which the vibration decoupler has at least one of a second stiffness different from the first stiffness and a second damping different from the first damping (adjusted using throttle valve 13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fujino with an adjustable vibration coupler as in Halladin to provide greater apparatus adaptability and protect machine components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30: Schmid further teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the machining of a track (Fig.2) takes place on a frog of a turnout (Para.[0013], track components accessible within the workspace).
Claims 13, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid in view of Halladin and Taira et al. (JP 2002292577 A).
Regarding claim 13: Schmid further teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein said at least one machining device has a screwing unit (Para.[0020]). Schmid does not teach the use of a plurality of screwing units.
However, Taira teaches the use of a plurality of screwing units on a machining unit (Fig.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schmid to include a plurality of screwing units as in Taira to increase track maintenance efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27: Schmid further teaches the method according to claim 24, which further comprises performing at least one of tightening and loosening two screw connections of a track one after the other (consecutive work; Para.[0018]).
Regarding claim 28: Schmid does not teach wherein two rotatably drivable screwing units are engaged simultaneously with one of the screw connections when performing the at least one of tightening and loosening two screw connections.
However, Taira teaches wherein two rotatably drivable screwing units are engaged simultaneously with one of the screw connections when performing the at least one of tightening and loosening two screw connections (Fig.4).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schmid to include a plurality of screwing units as in Taira to increase track maintenance efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14 and 29 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 within dependent claims 8, 14 and 19. The prior art fails to teach wherein said at least one vibration decoupler has a braking unit for adjustable braking of said at least one machining device relative to said fastening device as recited within claim 8. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine this feature with prior art.
Further, the prior art fails to teach a clamping/locking the machining device to the rail during machining as claimed within claims 14 and 29. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine this feature with the prior art as recited since the machining device of Fujino utilizes a gripper for processing track sleepers which would not properly clamp to a rail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615