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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. BE2020/5684, filed on 10/02/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (CN111235971A, provided), in view of Cialone et al. (US 8680165 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tan teaches (Fig. 1-6): A resilient sole (composite sleeper pad 1), arranged in particular to be attached to a concrete layer (concrete sleeper body 4) or positioned between a concrete layer and a ballast (Fig. 1 and 6), comprising: a rubber layer (damping layer 11; para. 0038), and a layer of structured fibres (connecting layer 12; para. 0035), arranged in contact with the rubber layer (11)(Fig. 1), said fibres (12) being partially impregnated in said rubber layer (wrapped with rubber and molded into one; para. 0045) and having a free thickness of structured fibres (top of fiber layer 12 being free; Fig. 1).
Tan further teaches (Fig. 1): a rubber layer (damping layer 11) that is vulcanized (para. 0008), but does not explicitly teach that the rubber is a recycled rubber in the revulcanised state after devulcanization.
However, Cialone teaches an alternate material for fabricating railroad ties, wherein: a railroad tie is formed from an amount of vulcanized recycled rubber particles (Claim 1; col. 2, line 57 – col. 3, line 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tan to use a recycled rubber in the revulcanised state after devulcanization for the resilient sole, as disclosed by Cialone, with a reasonable expectation of success because a revulcanized rubber restores much of the original rubber’s strength and elasticity, resulting in a high-performance, sustainable material.
Regarding claim 2, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): structured fibres (12) with a density, but does not explicitly teach that the fibers have a density of between 150g/m2 and 800g/m2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the structured fibers with a density of between 150g/m2 and 800g/m2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Providing a high-density fiber material would offer enhanced strength and load-bearing capacity, effective vibration and noise reduction, lightweight properties, and cost-efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1 and 4-5): the fibres (connecting layer 12) are impregnated at a depth (the lower part of the fiber has been wrapped with rubber in the vulcanized state; Tan, para. 0045), but does not explicitly teach that the fibers are impregnated at a depth of between 0.5 and 2mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to impregnate the fibers at a depth of the rubber between 0.5 and 2mm while vulcanizing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Impregnating a rubber with fiber at a shallow depth of between 0.5 and 2mm would provide the rubber with enhanced stiffness, enhanced shape retention, and maximum strength in the desired direction of stress.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tan and Cialone further teaches through Cialone: said recycled rubber in the revulcanised state (Claim 1; col. 2, line 57 – col. 3, line 8) has a Shore hardness of between 50 and 90 (65 Shore A), according to the standard measuring model, the durometer (col. 8, lines 32-54).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Revulcanizing a recycled rubber to a Shore hardness of between 50 and 90 would provide enhanced durability, longevity, and improved elasticity and resilience.
Regarding claim 5, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): said fibres (12) are chosen from the group of natural or synthetic materials, like polyester, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene, wool, cotton, hemp, coconut fibres (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 6, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): said recycled rubber layer comprises the rubber chosen from the group of natural or synthetic materials (para. 0038).
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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): said rubber layer (11) has a resistance to traction (rubber material has naturally high coefficient of friction and resistance to traction), but does not explicitly teach that the resistance of traction is greater than or equal to 7MPa.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a rubber with a resistance of traction greater than or equal to 7MPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). A quality rubber with high resistance to traction (i.e. high coefficient of friction) would ensure the rubber is resistant to mechanical stress, reducing the likelihood of premature fatigue cracking, tearing, or crushing of the pad itself.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tan and Cialone teaches the following limitations (see rejection of claim 1 above): An assembly, comprising: a concrete layer; and a resilient sole, comprising a recycled rubber layer, in the revulcanised state after devulcanisation, and a layer of structured fibres, arranged in contact with the rubber layer, said fibres being partially impregnated in said rubber layer and having a free thickness of structured fibres.
Tan further teaches (Fig. 1 and 6): said structured fibres are further partially impregnated on the free thickness of structured fibres in said concrete layer (4)(Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1 and 4-5): the fibres (connecting layer 12) are impregnated in the concrete block (4) on a thickness, but does not explicitly teach that of between 0.3 and 2mm, but does not explicitly teach that the fibers are impregnated in the concrete block on a thickness of between 0.3 and 2mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to impregnate the fibers in a concrete block on a thickness between 0.3 and 2mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Impregnating a concrete block with fiber at a shallow thickness of between 0.3 and 2mm would provide the concrete block with enhanced surface durability, crack control, and better moisture resistance by preventing water ingress and expansion.
Regarding claim 11, Tan teaches (Fig. 1-6): A method for manufacturing a resilient sole (1) comprising: vulcanizing rubber (para. 0008), adding at least one rubber additive (parts of base rubber; para. 0008, line 8), superpositioning a layer of structured fibres (12) and rubber (positioning the fiber structure and rubber film on the molds for vulcanizing; para. 0043-0045), including obtaining of two superposed layers (rubber layer 11 and fiber layer 12; Fig. 1 and 6), hot pressing said two superposed layers (11, 12) at a temperature of between 100 and 180°C (150 Celcius) during a predetermined time interval (2 hours) with vulcanisation of the rubber (para. 0008, lines 14-18) and formation of a resilient sole (1) where the structured fibres (12) are at least partially impregnated in said rubber layer (11) during vulcanisation (Fig. 1), by forming a vulcanised rubber-fibre interphase (Fig. 1 and 6).
Tan further teaches (Fig. 1): a rubber layer (damping layer 11) that is vulcanized (para. 0008), but does not explicitly teach that the rubber is a recycled rubber in the revulcanised state after devulcanization.
However, Cialone teaches an alternate material for fabricating railroad ties, wherein: a railroad tie is formed from an amount of vulcanized recycled rubber particles (Claim 1; col. 2, line 57 – col. 3, line 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tan to use a recycled rubber for revulcanization after devulcanization for the resilient sole, as disclosed by Cialone, with a reasonable expectation of success because a revulcanized rubber restores much of the original rubber’s strength and elasticity, resulting in a high-performance, sustainable material.
Regarding claim 12, Tan does not explicitly teach that said at least one additive comprises sulphur, or at least one resin, or at least one reaction activator or accelerator, or carbon black.
However, Cialone teaches an alternate material for fabricating railroad ties, wherein: an additive (additives) comprises sulphur, or at least one resin, or at least one reaction activator or accelerator, or carbon black (col. 3, lines 41-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tan to use sulphur, accelerators, activators, or carbon black as an additive, as disclosed by Cialone, with a reasonable expectation of success because sulfur creates durable crosslinks, giving rubber strength and elasticity. Accelerator and activators help speed up the sulphur’s reaction, and carbon black provides physical reinforcement, boosting strength and wear properties.
Regarding claim 13, Tan does not explicitly teach that said at least one additive comprises at least one resin chosen from the group comprising resins having at least one phenol group, at least one aromatic group, at least one styrene group, and any other resin which could be used with sulphur-vulcanised rubber and their combination.
However, Cialone teaches an alternate material for fabricating railroad ties, wherein: at least one additive comprises at least one resin (thermoset polyurethane or polyurea resin) chosen from the group comprising resins having at least one phenol group, at least one aromatic group, at least one styrene group, and any other resin which could be used with sulphur-vulcanised rubber and their combination (col. 3, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tan to use a resin as an additive for a sulphur-vulcanized rubber, as disclosed by Cialone, with a reasonable expectation of success because adding resins to a sulphur-vulcanized rubber would enhance mehcnical properties and offer superior heat and chemical resistance in the final product.
Regarding claim 14, the secondary reference Cialone further teaches: said at least one reaction activator is chosen from the group comprising CBS, stearic acid and zinc oxide (col. 3, lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 15, the Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): after the addition of at least one above said additive (adding the base rubber; para. 0008, line 8), the rubber mass is shaped (preformed into rubber sheets; par. 0043) and in that the layer of structured fibres (fiber filaments) and the rubber, are superposed so as to form said two layers (para. 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 17, the Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): the superposition and hot pressing steps are carried out in a mould (para. 0008, lines 14-18, and para. 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 18, the secondary reference Cialone further teaches: said vulcanised recycled rubber has a viscosity (inherent for rubber to have viscosity), but does not explicitly teach that the viscosity is less than 70MU, measured on a Mooney viscometer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to revulcanize a recycled rubber to a viscosity of less than 70MU, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Lowering the viscosity of a revulcanized rubber to below 70MU would make the rubber less resistant to flow, making it easier to mix, roll, press, mold, and extrude into new shapes and products.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (CN111235971A, provided), in view of Cialone et al. (US 8680165 B2) and Sekhar (CN 104822747 A, provided).
Regarding claim 8, Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): said rubber layer (11) has an extension to rupture (inherent in rubber), but does not explicitly teach that the extension to rupture is greater than 150%.
However, Sekhar teaches an alternate method of producing a devulcanized rubber (Abstract), wherein: a rubber compound has an extension to rupture greater than 150% (Page 8, Example 3 and Table 1 shows an elongation at break greater than 150%; page 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tan to use a rubber compound with an extension to rupture greater than 150%, as disclosed by Sekhar, with a reasonable expectation of success because a high quality rubber that is highly ductile and tough allows the rubber to be durable, long-lasting, and have superior shock and impact absorption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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 claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to teach a method comprising superficially brushing the impregnated structured fibres, so as to make these partially free, on a predetermined thickness. While Tan further teaches (Fig. 1-6): during the hot pressing, the structured fibres (12) are totally impregnated in said rubber layer (11) during vulcanization (fiber filaments are wound into the core 5 and placed with the core onto the rubber film; Fig. 5; para. 0042-0045), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Tan to include a method of superficially brushing the impregnated structured fibres, so as to make these partially free, on a predetermined thickness. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that Tan discloses the fiber filaments as being shaped through the core 5 (para. 0042) and pulled with the core before trimming off the flash (para. 0044-0045). The examiner finds no obvious reason to brush the fiber filaments instead of pulling them out with the core, since the filaments are attached to the cores.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a rubber railway resilient sole with embedded fiber: US-4235371-A, US-4311273-A, US-20140175185-A1, US-20160024720-A1, WO-2009108972-A1, DE-102014116905-A1, WO-2019201761-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615