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 .
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernandez (WO 2022087506 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Fernandez teaches a railway maintenance machine (FIG. 1C: depicted; abstract) comprising: a chassis (FIG. 1D: depicted including 150 154; paragraph 44), the chassis being configured for movement along a railway (FIG. 1C: depicted); an imaging device which faces downwardly towards the railway and which is configured to acquire images of the railway (FIG. 1F: 122 & associated features; paragraph 45); a tool that is associated with the imaging device and that is configured to manipulate a railway feature (FIG. 1A: 138; paragraph 43); and a controller that is coupled to the imaging device and the tool (FIG. 1A: 130 & 134; paragraph 43), the controller including: a railway feature detecting module including instructions that, when executed, compare an image captured by the imaging device to a database of images of railway features (FIG. 5: 530; paragraph 56); and an execution module including instructions that, when executed, automatically move the tool into alignment with a detected railway feature and cause the tool to interact with the railway feature (paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 7 Fernandez teaches that the imaging device comprises: a camera (FIG. 2A: 126; paragraph 46), a hood overlying the camera (FIG. 2A: depicted hooded), and at least one light located adjacent to the camera (FIG. 2A: 122; paragraph 46).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (WO 2022087506 A1) in view of Brenny et al. (US 9617692 B2, herein after referred to as Brenny).
Regarding claim 2 Fernandez teaches that the railway feature is a spike hole in a railroad tie (FIG. 10A: depicted), wherein the tool is an injection device (paragraph 41), but does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions executed by the execution module cause the injection device to inject a chemical into the spike hole to fill the spike hole.
However, Brenny does teach wherein the instructions executed by the execution module cause the injection device to inject a chemical into the spike hole to fill the spike hole (column 1, lines 41-54). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the chemical injection of Brenny with the railway vehicle of Fernandez in order to reenforce spike holes with epoxy and produce a stronger rail.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-15, & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (WO 2022087506 A1) in view of Brenny et al. (US 9617692 B2, herein after referred to as Brenny) and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20120192756 A1, herein after referred to as Miller).
Regarding claim 3 Fernandez as modified above does not explicitly teach a mothership vehicle on which the chassis is provided, the mothership vehicle being self-propelled along the railway, and a shuttle cart movable relative to the mothership vehicle, the shuttle cart comprising: a chassis that is configured to be self-propelled along the railway relative to the chassis of the mothership vehicle; wherein the imaging device and the injection device are supported on the chassis of the shuttle cart.
However, Miller does teach a mothership vehicle (FIG. 3: 20) on which the chassis is provided (FIG. 3: 30), the mothership vehicle being self-propelled along the railway (paragraph 32: 28), and a shuttle cart movable relative to the mothership vehicle (FIG. 3: 70), the shuttle cart comprising: a chassis (FIG. 3: depicted) that is configured to be self-propelled along the railway relative to the chassis of the mothership vehicle (FIG. 3: 78; paragraph 42); wherein the injection device is supported on the chassis of the shuttle cart (FIG. 3: 72). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the mothership and shuttle cart configuration of Miller with the railway machine of Fernandez as modified above in order to allow for smooth continuous movement of the whole machine without stopping as the injection device works. Fernandez teaches the imaging device and the injection device being on the same vehicle so as a result of the combination both the imaging device and the injection device would be together on the shuttle.
Regarding claim 4 Fernandez as modified above teaches that the mothership vehicle is configured to move at a substantially constant speed along the railway during a spike hole filling operation; and wherein the shuttle cart is configured to travel at a varying speed along the railway relative to the mothership vehicle (Miller FIG. 3: depicted in suitable configuration for this operation).
Regarding claim 5 Fernandez as modified above teaches actuators that are controlled by the controller to automatically drive the injection device laterally, longitudinally, and vertically relative to the railway to position the injection device in a longitudinal and lateral alignment with identified spike holes without operator input (Benny FIG. 6-9: depicted with injection device configured for movement as claimed, would be controlled by the controller of Fernandez as a result of the combination).
Regarding claim 6 Fernandez as modified above teaches that at least two chemical storage tanks; wherein the injection device further comprises a mixing tube; and wherein chemicals from the at least two chemical storage tanks are mixed in the mixing tube before being inserted into the spike hole (Brenny column 1, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 8 Fernandez teaches a method of operating a railway maintenance machine (FIG. 1A: depicted) to fill spike holes in railroad ties of a railway (paragraph 15), but does not teach a mothership or that the work device is an injection device.
However, Brenny does teach an injection device (column 1, lines 41-54). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the injection of Brenny with the railway vehicle of Fernandez in order to reenforce spike holes with epoxy and produce a stronger rail.
Furthermore, Miller teaches a mothership (FIG. 3: 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the mothership and shuttle cart configuration of Miller with the railway machine of Fernandez as modified above in order to allow for smooth continuous movement of the whole machine without stopping as the injection device works. Fernandez teaches the imaging device and the injection device being on the same vehicle so as a result of the combination both the imaging device and the injection device would be together on the shuttle.
As a result of the above combinations the rail machine of Fernandez as modified above would be able to perform the steps of: moving a mothership vehicle along a railway (Miller, paragraph 32: 28); automatically moving a shuttle cart along a railway (Miller, paragraph 44: 78), relative to the mothership (Miller, paragraph 44), the shuttle cart bearing an imaging device and an injection device (Fernandez, FIG. 1A: imaging device 126 and work device 138 together on same cart; Miller, FIG. 3: work device 72 on shuttle cart; Brenny abstract: work device is an injection device); using data from the imaging device, locating a railroad tie (Fernandez paragraph 46); in response to the locating, automatically stopping the shuttle cart over the located railroad tie (Miller, paragraph 44); using data from the imaging device, determining the existence and locations of a spike hole in the located railroad tie (Fernandez, paragraph 46); using a controller in communication with the imaging device (Fernandez, FIG. 5: 530), automatically moving the injection device in longitudinal and lateral directions relative to the shuttle cart to overlie the spike hole (Brenny, FIG. 6-9: injection device configured to move laterally and longitudinally); automatically lowering the injection device toward the spike hole (Brenny, FIG. 6-9: injection device configured to move vertically); and dispensing a chemical solution into the spike hole to fill the spike hole (Brenny, abstract).
Regarding claim 9 Fernandez as modified above teaches using the controller, detecting and identifying, from captured images from the imaging device, the spike hole when one or more foreign objects is on the railroad tie (Fernandez, paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 10 Fernandez as modified above teaches using the controller, detecting and identifying, from captured images from the imaging device, one or more of an imperfection in the railroad tie, a crack in the railroad tie, and foreign objects on the railroad tie (Fernandez, paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 11 Fernandez as modified above teaches a plurality of chemicals are mixed in a mixing tube of the at least one injection device to form the chemical solution (Brenny, column 1, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 12 Fernandez as modified above teaches that the imaging device is a first imaging device and the injection device is a first injection device, and wherein a second imaging device (Fernandez, FIG. 2B: depicted with two instances of 126) and a second injection device (Brenny, FIG. 11: 32A & 32B) are provided on the shuttle cart (result of the above combination with Miller), and further comprising: capturing a first plurality of images of a first railroad tie using the first imaging device (Fernandez paragraph 46); capturing a second plurality of images of a second railroad tie using the second imaging device (Fernandez paragraph 46); using a controller in communication with the first and second imaging devices (Fernandez paragraph 46), detecting and identifying, from the captured images (Fernandez paragraph 46), spike holes formed in the first and second railroad ties (Fernandez paragraph 46); automatically moving the first injection device in longitudinal and lateral directions to overlie the spike hole in the first railroad tie (Brenny FIG. 6-9: allowed for by structure); automatically moving the second injection device in longitudinal and lateral directions to overlie the at least one spike hole in the second railroad tie (Brenny FIG. 6-9: allowed for by structure); automatically lowering the first and second injection devices toward the spike holes in the first and second railroad ties (Brenny FIG. 6-9: allowed for by structure); and dispensing a chemical solution into the spike holes to fill the spike holes (Brenny, abstract).
Regarding claim 13 Fernandez as modified above teaches using the controller, determining, from captured images from the imaging device, whether a railroad tie is present (Fernandez paragraph 46); if it is determined that a railroad tie is present, automatically stopping the shuttle cart over the detected railroad tie (Miller paragraph 72); and automatically advancing the shuttle cart along the railway if no railroad tie is detected (Miller paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 14 Fernandez as modified above teaches that while the shuttle cart is positioned over a detected railroad tie, and detecting and identifying, from captured images from the imaging device, a railroad tie spike hole, and using the controller, determining the location of railroad spike hole (allowed for by the structure of the above combination).
Regarding claim 15 Fernandez teaches a railroad tie maintenance vehicle (FIG. 1A: depicted) but does not teach a mothership or that the work device is an injection device.
However, Brenny does teach an injection device (column 1, lines 41-54). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the injection of Brenny with the railway vehicle of Fernandez in order to reenforce spike holes with epoxy and produce a stronger rail.
Furthermore, Miller teaches a mothership (FIG. 3: 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the mothership and shuttle cart configuration of Miller with the railway machine of Fernandez as modified above in order to allow for smooth continuous movement of the whole machine without stopping as the injection device works. Fernandez teaches the imaging device and the injection device being on the same vehicle so as a result of the combination both the imaging device and the injection device would be together on the shuttle.
As a result Fernandez as modified above produces a rail vehicle for dispensing a chemical into spike holes in a railroad tie of a railway (Brenny, column 1, lines 41-54), comprising: a self-propelled mothership vehicle (Miller, FIG. 3: 20) having a chassis (Miller, FIG. 3: 30) that is movable along the railway (Miller, FIG. 3: depicted) and that supports an operator workstation (Fernandez, FIG. 1C: 135; located on the mothership as a result of the combination); a shuttle cart (Miller, FIG. 3: 70) that is operatively coupled to the chassis (Miller, FIG. 3: by 78) and that includes: a self-propelled chassis (Miller, FIG. 3: chassis depicted, self-propelled by 78) that is movable along the railway independently of the mothership vehicle (Miller, FIG. 3: depicted); an imaging device that faces downwardly towards the railroad tie and that is configured to collect images of the railroad tie (Fernandez, FIG. 2A: 126); at least one injection device (Brenny, abstract) that is located adjacent to the imaging device (result of the combination) and that is configured to dispense the chemical solution into the spike holes (Brenny, abstract); and a controller that is coupled to the imaging device (FIG. 1A: 134; paragraph 43), the controller including: a memory storing a database of images of spike holes (Fernandez, FIG. 5: 530 paragraphs 46 & 56); a spike hole detecting module (FIG. 1A: 130) including instructions that, when executed, compare an image captured by the imaging device to the database of images of spike holes; and an execution module including instructions that, when executed, move the at least one injection device to be inserted into a spike hole and deposits the chemical into the spike hole (allowed for by the structure of the combination).
Regarding claim 17 Fernandez as modified above teaches that the controller determines a lateral distance and longitudinal distance of the detected spike hole relative to the imaging device, and then moves the injection device the lateral distance and longitudinal distance to overlie the detected spike hole (allowed for by the structure of the combination).
Regarding claim 18 Fernandez as modified above teaches that the mothership vehicle is configured to move along the railroad at a substantially constant speed, wherein the shuttle cart is movably tethered, and wherein the shuttle cart is movable toward and away from the mothership vehicle while remaining tethered to the mothership vehicle (Miller, FIG. 3: depicted).
Regarding claim 19 Fernandez as modified above teaches a first tank containing a first chemical; and a second tank containing a second chemical; wherein the injection device further comprises a mixing tube configured to receive and mix a quantity of the first chemical and a quantity of the second chemical (Brenny, column 1, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 20 Fernandez as modified above teaches that the controller further comprises: a second execution module including instructions that, when executed, terminate movement of the shuttle cart when a railroad tie is identified in an image captured by the imaging device, after which the spike hole detection module identifies the location of the spike hole (Fernandez, FIG. 5: depicted with two instances of 530).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (WO 2022087506 A1) in view of Brenny et al. (US 9617692 B2, herein after referred to as Brenny) and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20120192756 A1, herein after referred to as Miller) and further in view of Franz (US 3372651 A).
Regarding claim 16 Fernandez as modified above teaches that the shuttle cart further comprises: a first filler workhead comprising a first hood, a first imaging device, and a first injection device; and a second filler workhead comprising a second hood, a second imaging device, and a second injection device (Fernandez, FIG. 2B: two imaging devices 126; Brenny FIG. 11: two injection devices 32A & 32B); however, Fernandez as modified above does not teach wherein the first filler workhead and the second filler workhead are configured to fill spike holes in first and second railroad ties simultaneously.
However, Franz does teach using two workheads that can work on a first and secondrail road tie simultaneously (FIG. 1: workheads and railroad ties depicted). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively modified Fernandez to use a pair of workheads that can operate on a pair of railroad ties simultaneously in order to work twice as fast.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach railroad tie maintenance vehicles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached on (571) 272-7742. 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.
MAXWELL L MESHAKA
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614