DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-27 are currently pending. Claims 1-27 are rejected under new grounds. Applicant's amendment, filed 05/26/2026, necessitated the new grounds of rejection. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan et al. (US 2003/0083001 A1) in view of Liné (US 4,583,893).
Referring to Claim 1: Natarajan teaches a device (50) configured as a rail-bound vehicle for grinding a profile (96) with a running surface (98) and a side surface (10) defining the profile, the device comprising:
at least one profiled grinding body (94) that is capable of being driven in a rotationally movable and/or oscillating manner about an axis of rotation (Fig. 11), wherein the at least one grinding body is concave at least in some portions (Para. [0043]), and wherein the axis of rotation (6) is capable of being positioned so as to be inclined with an orientation (angle I or J) relative to a vertical plane and/or relative to the a horizontal plane (Fig. 11),
a support (92) arranged on the device (50) so as to be movable in a translational manner in a transverse plane (lines 8-8 or 9-9) relative to the profile and/or relative to a feed direction via a guide, wherein the at least one grinding body (94) is arranged on the support (92) (Fig. 10) (Para. [0039]), and
at least one contact element (76) coupled to the support and capable of being applied against the profile in a region of a contact surface of the profile (Fig. 7), by which the support (90) with the grinding body (94) is automatically aligned in the transverse plane relative to the profile and relative to the device (Para. [0016] and [0037]), and wherein the axis of rotation of the at least one grinding body, with a transverse axis relative to the a longitudinal axis of the profile, spans a plane which intersects at least one contact surface (surface of rail engaging wheel 76) of the at least one contact element (76) on the profile (Figs. 7 and 11),
As noted by strikethrough above, Natarajan fails to teach that the axis of rotation of the at least one grinding body and the at least one contact element associated therewith are arranged in a common cross-sectional plane of the profile. However, Liné teaches a reprofiling device for rails through continuous milling, wherein the axis of rotation of the at least one grinding body (5) and the at least one contact element (14) associated therewith are arranged in a common cross-sectional plane of the profile (Fig. 5) (Col. 3, lines 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to arrange a contact element on the opposing side of the rail from the grinding body, as taught by Liné, in order to provide increased lateral force on the rail during grinding operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plane of the axis of rotation of the grinding body (94) is located parallel to a cross-sectional plane of the profile (96) (Para. [0040], last sentence) (Figs. 11 and 12).
Referring to Claim 4: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one contact element (76) and at least one the axis of rotation are kinematically coupled with each other such that, during the a grinding process, an orientation of the axis of rotation relative to the profile (96) is constant, with a change in an orientation of the axis of rotation relative to the contact element (Para. [0039]).
Referring to Claim 5: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation is movable about a virtual pivot axis for adjusting the orientation of the axis of rotation relative to the vertical plane and/or relative to the horizontal plane (Fig. 11), wherein an instantaneous center of rotation is located on a side of the running surface (98) and/or side surface to be grinded off of the profile (96) facing away from the grinding body (94) (Para. [0040]).
Referring to Claim 6: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device comprises a plurality of grinding bodies (94a, 94b) that are movable relative to one another on the support (90) in a same cross-sectional plane of the profile, and the support is configured to be movable relative to the device (50) in the transverse plane for delivery relative to the side surface and/or the running surface (Fig. 10) (Para. [0039]).
Referring to Claim 9: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation (6) of the grinding body (94) is oriented with a lateral offset in the across-sectional plane of the profile (96) such that the axis of rotation does not intersect the profile (Fig. 11).
Referring to Claim 11: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in a cross-sectional plane thereof, the profile (96) has a convex or planar surface (98) divided into a plurality of surface portions to be grinded, wherein the device comprises a plurality of grinding bodies (94a, 94b) arranged with different inclination angles of the respective axes of rotation for machining different surface portions, wherein at least one grinding body has a concave contouring (Fig. 11) (Para. [0040]).
Referring to Claim 13: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one grinding body (94) has a concave machining surface on the a front face, with a cutting edge that is geometrically undefined (Fig. 11) (Para. [0040]).
Referring to Claim 15: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein, during a rotating and/or oscillating movement of the grinding body (94), the support (90) is configured to be movable in a reversible translational manner in a plane parallel to a main extent of the profile (96) (Para. [0039]) (Fig. 10).
Referring to Claim 16: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation of the at least one grinding body (94) encloses an acute angle with the longitudinal axis of the profile (96) (Fig. 11) (Para. [0040]).
Referring to Claim 17: Natarajan teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one grinding body (94) and/or the support (90) is capable of being driven in the rotational manner or the translational manner by at least one electrical and/or hydraulic drive of the device (58) (Para. [0035] and [0037]).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan in view of Liné and EP 3779045 A1.
Referring to Claim 3: Natarajan does not specifically teach that a plane of the axis of rotation of the grinding body encloses an acute angle with a cross-sectional plane of the profile, so that the axis of rotation of the grinding body has a trailing or leading orientation relative to the feed direction of the device relative to the profile. However, EP 3779045 teaches a device and method for processing the surface of a rail head of a rail by face grinding, wherein a plane of the axis of rotation (12) of the grinding body (7) encloses an acute angle with a cross-sectional plane of the profile (13), so that the axis of rotation of the grinding body has a trailing or leading orientation relative to the feed direction of the device relative to the profile (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to additionally pivot the grinding body in relation to the feed direction, as taught by EP 3779045, in order to improve the quality of the grinding pattern and effectiveness of the maintenance effort (see EP 3779045, attached EPO translation, abstract) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 12: Natarajan does not specifically teach that the orientation of the axis of rotation for trailing or leading machining is inclined relative to a cross-sectional plane of the profile and relative to the feed direction. However, EP 3779045 teaches a device and method for processing the surface of a rail head of a rail by face grinding, wherein the orientation of the axis of rotation (12) for trailing or leading machining is inclined relative to a cross-sectional plane of the profile (13) and relative to the feed direction (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to additionally pivot the grinding body in relation to the feed direction, as taught by EP 3779045, in order to improve the quality of the grinding pattern and effectiveness of the maintenance effort (see EP 3779045, attached EPO translation, abstract) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan in view of Liné and Panetti (US 5,265,379).
Referring to Claim 7: Natarajan does not specifically teach that the support is automatically aligned due to an adjustable pretensioning force in the transverse plane relative to the profile and relative to the device. However, Panetti teaches a device for the reprofiling of the rails of a railway track, wherein the support (13) is automatically aligned due to an adjustable pretensioning force (via 18) in the transverse plane relative to the profile (1) and relative to the device (10) (Fig. 3) (Col. 6, lines 44-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to automatically align the support with pretensioning force, as taught by Panetti, in order that “the guiding of the support and therefore of the burnishing assemblies is achieved in an extremely accurate way, independently of the lateral oscillations of the vehicle or of the trolley and therefore of the frame” (Panetti, Col. 6, lines 51-54) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 18: Natarajan does not specifically teach that a rotational or oscillating movement of the at least one grinding body (94) and a translational movement of the support (90) are synchronized by a kinematic coupling. However, Panetti teaches a device for the reprofiling of the rails of a railway track, wherein, “[i]n a variant, the two grinding wheels 11 could be driven in rotation by a single motor 12 with the help of an appropriate kinematic link, gear wheel, etc.” (Col. 8, lines 37-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to synchronize the rotational movement of the grinding body with the translational movement of the support through a kinematic coupling, as suggested by Panetti, in order to reduce the number of drives necessary to power both movements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan in view of Liné and Bühler (US 4,785,589).
Referring to Claim 8: Natarajan does not specifically teach that the grinding body (4) can be pretensioned in a force-controlled manner relative to the profile (2). However, Bühler teaches a process for measuring and grinding the profile of a rail head, wherein the grinding body (16a) can be pretensioned in a force-controlled manner (via 25) relative to the profile (1) (Fig. 4a) (Col. 6, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to pretension the grinding body in a force-controlled manner, as taught by Bühler, in order to independently adjust the force of each grinding body appropriately with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan in view of Liné and Mathison et al. (US 6,033,291).
Referring to Claim 10: Natarajan further teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device comprises a plurality of grinding bodies (94a, 94b) that are arranged one behind the other on one respective support (90) in the feed direction (Fig. 9), wherein the axes of rotation of the plurality of grinding bodies (94a, 94b) are oriented inclined to one another (Fig. 11)
As noted by strikethrough above, Natarajan fails to teach that at least one contact element is assigned to each grinding body. However, Mathison teaches an offset rail grinding system, wherein “[a] rotatable sensor 82 rides on the gage side of the rail 12 in order to correctly position the grinding head 80 with respect to the railhead 14.” (Col. 5, lines 32-34) (Figs. 6 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to provide a contact body for each of the grinding bodies, as taught by Mathison, in order to correctly position the grinding head with respect to the railhead with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan in view of Liné and Bull et al. (US 4,829,723).
Referring to Claim 14: Natarajan further teaches a device (50) as claimed in claim 1, wherein, via a control, a pressing force of the grinding body (94) is adjustable relative to the profile (96) (Para. [0016] teaching “The adjustment of the angle of the first grinding module or the second grinding module may be performed manually or automatically through use of a programmed control system.”)
As noted by strikethrough above, Natarajan fails to teach that the pressing force is adjustable as a function of torque acting on the axis of rotation and/or a feed rate of the device. However, Bull teaches a rail grinding system, wherein “[t]he amount of metal ground from a rail 34 during a single pass of the grinding stone of the grinding module 158 along the rail 34 is a function of the speed of rotation of the stone and the amount of force with which the stone is held into contact with the rail 34.” (Col. 6, lines 47-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Natarajan to use the programmed control system to adjust the pressing force of the grinding body as a function of the torque or feed rate, as suggested by Bull, in order to automatically adjust the amount of metal ground from the rail using a programmed control system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 19-27, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1-20 inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant argues that Natarajan fails to teach amended claim 1 because the rail engaging wheels 76 of Natarajan are not in a common cross-sectional plane of the profile, and further, Panetti fails to teach the amended limitation because Panetti’s rollers 17 are located forwardly and rearwardly of the location of the griding wheel axis. Examiner agrees and has introduced Liné to teach the amended limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Examiner notes that the prior art fails to teach the U-shaped contact element as see in Fig. 6 of the instant application, the U-shape enabling the axis of grinding wheel 4 to be arranged in the same cross-sectional plane as the contact element. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite the two contact elements, including the u-shaped slide 13 and height detecting roller 14, as described in Para. [0090] and seen in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argues that amended claim 19 is not anticipated because Natarajan shows the rail engaging wheel 76 to be completely offset from the grinding stone 94 and Panetti shows the rollers 17 to be located longitudinally forward and aft of the grinding wheels 11. Examiner agrees that Natarajan and Panetti fail to teach this limitation, but responds that the newly introduced Liné reference renders the amended claims obvious, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that Liné is not specifically directed to a rail-bound grinding vehicle, but is still highly relevant to the problem of grinding/milling rails. Further, claim 19 fails to recite a rail-bound vehicle as part of the grinding method. Examiner suggests amending claim 19 to include corresponding steps of operating a rail-bound vehicle and additionally amending to recite the step of providing two contact elements, including the u-shaped slide 13 and height detecting roller 14, as described in Para. [0090] and seen in Fig. 6.
Applicant argues that the additional references of Philipp, Panetti, Bühler, Matheson and Bull fail to render amended claims 1 and 19 obvious. Examiner contends that the newly introduced Liné reference renders the amended claims obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights