DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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) has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “109” has been used to designate both a distance and a cotter pin (see pgh. 0064).
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10, 12, 16 and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the biasing devices biases the lever…” and “operating the actuator assembly compresses the biasing device”. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (“a retarder device”), but these limitations appear to recite active method steps performed by the device. It is unclear what scope of protection is being sought. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as a capability (e.g. “configured to bias the lever” and “configured to compress the biasing device”). The claims recite numerous instances throughout of similar active language rather than capabilities, all of which should be amended to recite a capability, to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 recites “a biasing device positioned between the lever and the block”. It is unclear how this limitation is supported by the instant disclosure. Shown in fig. 19 for example, biasing device 64 is positioned between two blocks 90, and the levers 40 are on the opposite side of the block 90 from the biasing device 64. In other words, it appears to be the block that is positioned between the lever and the biasing device, contrary to what is claimed.
Claim 2 recites “the biasing device is a coil spring that is sandwiched between the lever and the block”. It is unclear how this limitation is supported by the instant disclosure. See discussion of claim 1 above. Shown in fig. 19 for example, biasing device 64 is sandwiched between two blocks 90 rather than between the block 90 and the lever 40.
Claim 4 recites, “operating the actuator assembly moves the block toward the lever”. It is unclear how this limitation is supported by the instant disclosure. Shown in figs. 16-17, when the actuator is operated, block 90 on the left side appears to move the block away from the lever, and when the actuator is not operated, the spring biases the block toward the lever (as seen in fig. 16). The right block does not move in either case, so this cannot be the instantly claimed block.
Claim 9 recites, “the second braking rail”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is being referred to. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as one of the rails 14 not previously recited.
Claim 12 recites, “an actuator assembly”, previously recited in claim 11. It is unclear if this is the same actuator assembly as previously recited, or a further actuator assembly. In other words, it is unclear how many actuator assemblies are required by the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as a single actuator assembly.
Claim 16 recites, “a railcar”, previously recited in claim 11. It is unclear if this is the same railcar as previously recited, or a further railcar. In other words, it is unclear how many railcars are required by the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as a single railcar.
Claim 18 recites, “the biasing devices biases the lever…” and “operating the actuator assembly compresses the biasing device”. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (“a retarder device”), but these limitations appear to recite active method steps performed by the device. It is unclear what scope of protection is being sought. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as a capability (e.g. “configured to bias the lever” and “configured to compress the biasing device”). The claims recite numerous instances throughout of similar active language rather than capabilities, all of which should be amended to recite a capability, to avoid confusion.
Claim 18 recites “a biasing device positioned between the lever and the block”. It is unclear how this limitation is supported by the instant disclosure. Shown in fig. 19 for example, biasing device 64 is positioned between two blocks 90, and the levers 40 are on the opposite side of the block 90 from the biasing device 64. In other words, it appears that the block that is positioned between the lever and the biasing device, contrary to what is claimed.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank (U.S. 3621943).
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses (fig. 2) A retarder device configured for moving a braking rail (21) to slow a railcar on a running rail (T), wherein the retarder device is configured to be coupled to an actuator assembly (everything to the right of 12R, including 28, 29, etc.), the retarder device comprising:
a lever (12) that pivotally couples the braking rail to the running rail (via 13);
a block (25) opposing of the lever, wherein the block comprises an engagement feature (righthand surface) configured for operatively coupling the block to the actuator assembly (they are “coupled” in an operative manner in that they work together with one another to operate the levers); and
a biasing device (23) positioned between the lever and the block (in the left-right direction as shown), wherein the biasing device biases the lever to pivot to move the braking rail towards the running rail (see claim 1 at least, “bias the levers to a normal position where the retarder elements are separate by less than a width of a car wheel”),
wherein operating the actuator assembly compresses the biasing device for shimming the retarder device and/or for moving the braking rail away from the running rail (see claim 1 at least, “pressure admitted to the cylinder is effective to compress the spring and spread the retarder elements to a wheel releasing position”).
Regarding claim 2, Frank discloses (fig. 2) the biasing device is a coil spring (as shown) that is sandwiched between the lever and the block (spring 23 is sandwiched and is axially between the two recited elements, therefore it is “sandwiched between”).
Regarding claim 3, Frank discloses (fig. 2) a rod (24) that extends through the lever, the coil spring, and the block to maintain alignment therebetween (figs. 2 and 4 as shown).
Regarding claim 4, Frank discloses (fig. 2) operating the actuator assembly moves the block towards the lever (see fig. 2 vs. fig. 1, bottom of lever 10 is pivoted toward the right when engaged while the elements 25/26 remain in contact with 10, thus the block 25 moves toward the lever 12).
Regarding claim 9, Frank discloses (fig. 2) the lever is a first lever and the braking rail is a first braking rail, further comprising a second lever (10) that pivotally couples the second braking rail to the running rail (two braking rails 21 shown), wherein the biasing device is positioned between the first lever and the second lever (as shown), and wherein the retarder device is configured to be shimmed by positioning a shim (26) between the second lever and the first block (as shown) when the biasing device is compressed by the actuator assembly (the device is shimmed as shown at least during the recited condition of “when the biasing device is compressed by the actuator assembly”).
Regarding claim 18, Frank discloses (fig. 2) A retarder device configured for moving a braking rail (21) to slow a railcar on a running rail (T), the retarder device comprising:
a lever (12) that pivotally couples the braking rail to the running rail (via 13);
a block (25) opposing the lever and a biasing device (23) positioned between the lever and the block (as shown), wherein the biasing device biases the lever to move the braking rail towards the running rail (see claim 1 at least); and an actuator assembly operatively coupled to the block and the lever (as shown),
wherein operating the actuator assembly compresses the biasing device such that the braking rail moves away from the running rail to thereby reduce braking for the railcar on the running rail (see claim 1 at least).
Regarding claim 19, Frank discloses (fig. 2) the lever is a first lever, the braking rail is a first braking rail, and the block is a first block, further comprising:
a second lever (10) that pivotally couples a second braking rail (other 21) to the running rail; and
a second block (27) opposing the second lever (it is on the opposite side of the spring, thus “opposing”), wherein the biasing device is sandwiched between the first block and the second block (spring 23 is sandwiched and is axially between the two recited elements, therefore it is “sandwiched between”) and biases the second lever to move the second braking rail towards the running rail (as shown);
wherein the first block is configured to couple one or more shims (26) thereto such that the one or more shims are positioned between the first block and the second lever (as shown), and wherein coupling the one or more shims to first block shim the retarder device to adjust a separation between the first braking rail and the second braking rail (the presence of elements 26 has a shimming effect such that their absence would result in the lever pivoting toward the running rail more due to force of the spring 23),
Regarding claim 20, Frank discloses (fig. 2) the biasing device is a coil spring (as shown), further comprising a rod (24) that extends through the first lever, the second block, the coil spring, the first block, and the second lever (as shown) to maintain alignment therebetween, and wherein the actuator is a hydraulic actuator (see col. 1 lines 12-20) that when operated forces a lower end of the first lever and the first block closer together while the rod extends through the first lever, the second block, the coil spring, the first block, and the second lever (see fig. 1 vs. fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devaney (U.S. 2947385) in view of Frank (U.S. 3621943).
Regarding claim 11, Devaney discloses (fig. 3) A method for shimming a retarder device having a lever (one of 10L, 10R) that moves a braking rail (one of 14, 15) to slow a railcar (CW) on a running rail (TR), the retarder device further comprising a block (52) opposing the lever and a biasing device (20) that pivots the lever to move the braking rail towards the running rail (see col. 4 lines 44-55), the method comprising:
coupling one or more shims (55) such that the block is positioned between the one or more shims and the biasing device (fig. 3 as shown, shims are coupled and blocks are positioned as claimed); and
decompressing the biasing device, whereby the retarder device is shimmed by the coupling of the one or more shims to the block (via pressing force and internal friction, at least. Normal state of the device, see col. 4 lines 44-55).
Devaney does not appear to disclose an actuator operatively coupled to the block, or compressing the biasing device via operation of the actuator assembly. In the same field of endeavor of railway car retarders, Frank teaches an actuator (see fig. 1, all elements to the right of 12R) operatively coupled to the block (via lever 12), and compressing the biasing device (23) via operation of the actuator assembly (see fig. 1 vs. fig. 2). In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the actuator of Frank would be added to the railway retarder of Devaney. The actuator would connect to the shaft 41 of Devaney, while the cup 28 would press the levers together under force of the piston 40, thereby compressing the levers together and releasing the retarder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an actuator to actuate the retarder of Devaney to allow for controlled operation and release of the retarder, when desired. Such a modification allows for an operator to have the capability of not providing braking force under certain circumstances, if desired.
Regarding claim 13, Devaney as modified discloses (figs. 1-2 Frank) operatively coupling the actuator assembly to the lever (as shown, the elements are operatively coupled and work together).
Regarding claim 16, Devaney as modified discloses (figs. 1-2 Frank) operating the actuator device to compress the biasing device to reduce braking by the braking rail on a railcar.
Regarding claim 17, Devaney as modified discloses coupling the one or more shims to the block (as shown, shims are coupled to the block by frictional force and pressing forces, at least).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10, 12, and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616