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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/13/23 and 02/05/26 are being considered by the examiner.
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 2, 8-10, 13, 15, 21, and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “spans no more than 40% of the entire width of the slab, and preferably no more than 30% of the entire width of the slab.” The term “preferably” introduces ambiguity as to whether the “no more than 30%” language is a required limitation or merely an optional, non-limiting preference. The inclusion of optional/preferential language within a claim renders the metes and bounds unclear.
Claim 13 similarly recites “no greater than 12 m, and preferably no greater than 8 m, and even more preferably no greater than 4 m.” The terms “preferably” and “even more preferably” introduce ambiguity as to the required maximum slab length, because it is unclear which of the recited maxima are required limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 likewise recites “no greater than 15 cm, and preferably no greater than 11 cm,” which creates uncertainty as to whether the “11 cm” maximum is required or optional.
Claim 8 recites “a rail paid area configured to support a rail pad…” The term “rail paid area” is unclear and does not have a reasonably certain meaning in view of the record. The specification and related claim language elsewhere use “rail pad area” (e.g., claim 9), suggesting “rail paid area” is a typographical error. As written, the claim does not provide reasonable certainty as to the structural feature being claimed.
Claim 10 recites “The rail support arrangement of any of claim 1…”. The dependency phrase “any of claim 1” is improper and indefinite because it does not clearly identify the claim(s) from which claim 10 depends. As written, the dependency is unclear and the claim does not distinctly set forth its scope as a dependent claim.
Each of claims 21 and 22 recites, as a required element, “a rail support arrangement or a rail support system,” followed by separate definitional “wherein” clauses describing what the “rail support arrangement comprises” and what the “rail support system comprises.” The use of “or” in combination with subsequent definitional clauses creates ambiguity as to the required components of the claimed invention. It is unclear whether the claim requires (i) a rail support arrangement only, (ii) a rail support system only, or (iii) a configuration that must satisfy both definitions simultaneously.
Further, claims 21 and 22 each recite that each rail fastening system is configured to “engage with an upper surface of the rail support of the rail support arrangement or the rail support system.” The phrase “the rail support” is ambiguous in view of the earlier recitation of “a plurality of rail supports” (i.e., it is unclear which particular rail support is being referred to). This also raises an antecedent clarity issue as to whether “the rail support” is intended to mean “a rail support” or “each rail support” of the plurality.
Additionally, claims 21 and 22 use inconsistent reference characters for direction (e.g., “(Y)” versus “(y)”), which contributes to lack of clarity as to the intended directional relationship being claimed.
LIST OF REFERENCES RELIED UPON
Reference 1 (“Tusino”): US 2018/0023258 A1 (Tusino et al.), published Jan. 25, 2018.
Reference 2 (“Carnelli”): EP 1 700 954 A3 (Carnelli), published Nov. 28, 2007.
Reference 3 (“Van der Houwen”): US 2014/0042235 A1 (Van der Houwen et al.), published Feb. 13, 2014.
Reference 4 (“Batchell”): EP 0 327 247 A2 (Batchell), published Aug. 9, 1989.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tusino (Reference 1) in view of Carnelli (Reference 2) and further in view of Batchell (Reference 4) and further in view of Van der Houwen (Reference 3).
CLAIM 1 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
A rail support arrangement for supporting one or more rails, the rail support arrangement comprising: a slab having two or more primary transverse grooves; and a plurality of rail supports, each rail support being mounted in a respective primary transverse groove and comprising at least one projection configured to engage with a rail fastening system, received in the respective primary transverse groove, that couples a rail to the rail support so as to restrict or prevent a movement of the rail in a direction (x) perpendicular to the direction (y) of the respective primary transverse groove.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1
Limitation 1A: “A rail support arrangement for supporting one or more rails” Tusino teaches a railway track-support module whose base body is a “supporting slab 101” (concrete) that supports rails (rail 6) using rail-bearing blocks (blocks 30) and fastening member(s) (fastening member 32) borne by the rail-bearing blocks. Thus, Tusino teaches a rail support arrangement for supporting one or more rails.
Limitation 1B: “the rail support arrangement comprising: a slab” Tusino explicitly teaches the base body is a concrete “supporting slab 101.”
Limitation 1C: “having two or more primary transverse grooves” Tusino teaches that the supporting slab includes “one or more pairs of housings with prismatic basin 3” configured to house rail-bearing blocks 30. A “pair” necessarily provides at least two such basins/housings. These housings/basins are open recesses in the slab that function as grooves/receiving recesses for the rail-support blocks. Carnelli further teaches that a concrete platform (platform 2) includes “guides 11” embedded in the platform and oriented “transverse” to the rails (rails 7), for receiving/holding fastener screws (screws 10) that anchor the rails. This evidences that providing transverse rail-fastener receiving guide/groove structures in a concrete slab/platform is known and used to facilitate rail positioning and fastening. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure/arrange Tusino’s multiple basins/housings (basin 3) as “primary transverse grooves” (i.e., groove structures extending in a transverse direction relative to the rail direction) consistent with Carnelli’s transverse guide orientation, to facilitate transverse adjustability/positioning of the rail fastening within the slab while maintaining rail support.
Limitation 1D: “and a plurality of rail supports” Tusino teaches “rail-bearing blocks 30” that are distinct rail-support bodies used to support and fasten the rails (rail 6).
Limitation 1E: “each rail support being mounted in a respective primary transverse groove” Tusino teaches the slab includes housings/basins (prismatic basin 3) “apt to house rail-bearing blocks 30.” Thus each rail-bearing block 30 is mounted/received in its corresponding basin/housing 3.
Limitation 1F: “and comprising at least one projection configured to engage with a rail fastening system, received in the respective primary transverse groove” Batchell teaches a concrete supporting mass (supporting mass 10) having an insert (insert 11) that defines a “T-slot 15.” The insert includes opposed “flanges 19” that function as projections extending into the slot. Batchell further teaches the slot receives fastening/retaining components, including a “retaining block 17” having a “T-head 16” (and bolt 29) that engages the flanges 19 within the T-slot 15. These are rail-fastener engagement features inside the groove/slot. Tusino teaches rail-bearing blocks 30 that bear fastening member(s) 32 for fastening the rail 6, with the blocks being received in slab housings/basins 3. It would have been obvious to configure Tusino’s rail support block 30 to include at least one projection (e.g., flange-like projection analogous to Batchell’s flanges 19) for engagement by the rail fastening system positioned within the groove/basin, because Batchell teaches that such projection-and-fastener engagement within a groove/slot provides a robust and adjustable fastening interface for rail securement within a concrete support structure.
Limitation 1G: “that couples a rail to the rail support so as to restrict or prevent a movement of the rail in a direction (x) perpendicular to the direction (y) of the respective primary transverse groove” Tusino teaches the rail-bearing blocks 30 “bear fastening member 32 for rail 6,” i.e., a fastening member that couples the rail 6 to the rail-bearing block 30. Such fastening prevents rail separation/lift relative to the block (movement perpendicular to the groove direction, e.g., vertical). Batchell similarly teaches that the rail fastening engagement within the slot (via retaining block 17 and the T-slot flanges 19) clamps/retains the rail relative to the concrete support structure, thereby restricting movement of the rail away from the support in a direction perpendicular to the groove/slot direction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 1) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Tusino’s slab-and-block rail support module using transverse groove/guide arrangements as taught by Carnelli (guides 11 transverse to rails 7) to facilitate transverse positioning/adjustment of rail fasteners within a concrete platform. It further would have been obvious to incorporate Batchell’s projection-and-slot engagement (flanges 19 defining a slot interface engaged by retaining components 17/16) into Tusino’s rail support interface to provide a robust, known groove-contained engagement structure that allows secure fastening while permitting positional adjustment of the rail fastening hardware within the groove/basin. These modifications would predictably improve fastening robustness and adjustability without changing the fundamental purpose of Tusino’s rail-support module.
CLAIM 2 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein each primary transverse groove spans no more than 40% of the entire width of the slab, and preferably no more than 30% of the entire width of the slab.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 2 Additional Limitation 2A: “each primary transverse groove spans no more than 40% of the entire width of the slab” Tusino teaches that the slab provides “pairs of housings with prismatic basin 3” to house rail-bearing blocks 30 (i.e., localized recesses associated with supporting respective rails). This evidences that the groove/basin structures are localized housings associated with each rail-support location rather than a full-width continuous trench. It would have been obvious to select the transverse groove span to be no more than 40% of the slab width as an engineering/design choice to preserve structural integrity of the slab while still providing sufficient space to receive the rail-support block and fastening hardware. Such selection is a predictable optimization of a known geometric parameter (groove span) in view of the known tradeoff between providing sufficient access/adjustability and retaining sufficient slab material for strength.
Additional Limitation 2B: “and preferably no more than 30% of the entire width of the slab” To the extent the “preferably” clause is treated as an additional structural limitation, it similarly would have been obvious to further limit groove span (e.g., to no more than 30%) to further preserve slab material/strength and reduce the amount of recess volume, while still accommodating the rail support and fastening features, particularly where Tusino already uses localized rail-support housings/basins for rail-bearing blocks 30.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 2) It would have been obvious to choose a partial-width groove span (e.g., ≤40% and even ≤30%) to balance (i) sufficient transverse positioning capability for the rail fastening and (ii) maintaining slab stiffness/strength by minimizing material removed from the slab, especially in a precast slab system like Tusino’s supporting slab 101 that already uses localized housings/basins 3 for blocks 30.
CLAIM 3 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the two or more primary transverse grooves comprises two or more sets of primary transverse grooves, wherein each primary transverse groove in a same set are positioned along a same hypothetical transverse line.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 3 Additional Limitation 3A: “two or more sets of primary transverse grooves” Tusino teaches “one or more pairs of housings with prismatic basin 3” in the slab for housing rail-bearing blocks 30. Each “pair” of basins/housings constitutes a set, and multiple pairs along the slab constitute “two or more sets.”
Additional Limitation 3B: “each primary transverse groove in a same set are positioned along a same hypothetical transverse line” In Tusino, each pair of housings/basins 3 is provided to house rail-bearing blocks 30 for supporting corresponding rails (rail 6). A pair of rail-support housings aligned across the slab corresponds to the conventional arrangement of two rail-support points aligned on a transverse line (one for each rail at the same longitudinal station). Tusino’s explicit teaching of “pairs” of basins 3 for rail-bearing blocks 30 supports this alignment concept.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 3) It would have been obvious to provide the grooves in repeated “sets” aligned along transverse lines because doing so maintains a consistent track gauge relationship and provides repeatable rail support stations along the track (a predictable structural arrangement in rail slab systems), and Tusino already teaches using pairs of housings/basins 3 to house rail-bearing blocks 30 for the rails 6.
CLAIM 4 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 3, wherein, for each set of primary transverse grooves, the combined length of the primary transverse grooves in that set is no more than 60% of the entire width of the slab.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 4 Additional Limitation 4A: “for each set… combined length… no more than 60% of the entire width” Tusino teaches a concrete supporting slab 101 with “pairs” of localized housings/basins 3 that house rail-bearing blocks 30. These are discrete housings rather than a single full-width trench, and thus the combined transverse extent of the pair can be selected/optimized relative to slab width. It would have been obvious to limit the combined length of the set to no more than 60% of slab width to preserve the central portion of the slab for structural stiffness and to reduce the quantity of recess volume (and associated manufacturing complexity), while still providing sufficient transverse recess length to accommodate the rail support blocks and fastening hardware.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 4) It would have been obvious to select a combined set-length threshold (e.g., ≤60%) as a predictable optimization that preserves slab structural integrity while providing adequate space for the paired rail-support housings/basins and their rail-bearing blocks, consistent with Tusino’s localized basin approach.
CLAIM 5 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein each primary transverse groove spans no less than 10% of the entire width of the slab.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 5 Additional Limitation 5A: “each primary transverse groove spans no less than 10% of the entire width” Tusino teaches housings/basins 3 sized to “house rail-bearing blocks 30” which in turn bear rail fastening member(s) 32 for rail 6. These blocks necessarily require a non-trivial transverse dimension to physically house the block and fastening hardware. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to size the groove/basin to span at least 10% of slab width as a minimum practical dimension sufficient to receive the rail-bearing block and fastener components and allow installation/manufacturing tolerances.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 5) It would have been obvious to select a minimum groove span (≥10% of slab width) to ensure the basin/groove provides sufficient space for the rail-bearing block and fastening member and thus achieves reliable manufacturability and assembly, consistent with Tusino’s basin 3 housing blocks 30 and fastening member(s) 32.
CLAIM 6 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the two or more primary transverse grooves comprises at least two primary transverse grooves of different lengths.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 6 Additional Limitation 6A: “at least two… grooves of different lengths” Tusino teaches the slab includes multiple housings/basins 3 to house rail-bearing blocks 30 (and thus multiple groove/housing features). It would have been obvious to implement at least two such transverse grooves/housings of different lengths to accommodate different fastening layouts, different rail-support hardware packages, or different positional adjustment ranges at different locations (e.g., where certain locations need greater adjustment range or accommodate additional components), because groove length is a predictable design parameter directly affecting adjustment envelope and component accommodation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 6) It would have been obvious to provide different groove lengths at different stations to tailor the adjustment range and/or accommodate differing hardware at different slab locations while retaining the same overall slab-based rail support architecture of Tusino (slab 101 with basins 3 housing blocks 30 bearing fastening member(s) 32).
CLAIM 7 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4, AND 3)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the slab further comprises, for each of one or more primary transverse grooves, a supporting transverse groove into which the primary transverse groove is inset.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 7 Additional Limitation 7A: “a supporting transverse groove into which the primary transverse groove is inset” Van der Houwen teaches a rail support block assembly in which a tray structure (outer tray 80; inner tray 90) is configured to be embedded in surrounding hardenable material and supports a molded block (block 20) with integrated rail-fastening components and/or elastic plate under the rail. The tray defines a recess/cavity region in the surrounding slab/substructure in which the block and its fastening features reside, i.e., a larger receiving recess that can be viewed as a “supporting groove” for the rail-support/fastener structure. Van der Houwen also teaches anchoring members (anchoring members 81 on tray 80; anchoring members 91, 92 on tray 90) to secure the tray within surrounding material. Thus, it would have been obvious to provide, around Tusino’s primary groove/basin 3, a larger supporting recess/groove (supporting groove) that provides additional accommodation and support area for the rail support block and associated pads/fasteners, with the primary groove/basin inset within that larger recess, as taught by the concept of a tray-defined recess surrounding the rail support block in Van der Houwen.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 7) It would have been obvious to provide a larger supporting groove/recess surrounding the primary groove to (i) increase available support surface area, (ii) better accommodate integrated fastening and resilient components, and (iii) improve installation tolerances and robustness, consistent with Van der Houwen’s use of tray-defined recess structures (outer tray 80 / inner tray 90) embedded in a slab/substructure for supporting rail blocks and fasteners.
CLAIM 8 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4, AND 3)
The rail support arrangement of claim 7, wherein at least one supporting transverse groove comprises a rail paid area configured to support a rail pad upon which a rail is supportable.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 8 Additional Limitation 8A: “rail pad area configured to support a rail pad” Van der Houwen teaches providing “an elastic plate which will lie under the rail” integrated into the block. This is a rail pad (or rail pad component) positioned to lie under the rail, implying a support area/seat for the elastic plate/pad. Tusino also references use of elastomeric plate structures in association with the sleeper/block system (“boot made of rubber and elastomeric plate of block-pad”), which is consistent with providing a rail pad at the rail support location.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 8) It would have been obvious to incorporate a rail pad support area (and corresponding pad) at least in some supporting grooves to reduce impact/vibration transmission and to improve rail support compliance, as evidenced by Van der Houwen’s elastic plate under the rail and Tusino’s elastomeric block-pad concepts.
CLAIM 9 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4, AND 3)
The rail support arrangement of claim 8, further comprising, for at least one rail pad area, a rail pad configured to support a rail thereon.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9 Additional Limitation 9A: “a rail pad configured to support a rail thereon” Van der Houwen explicitly teaches an “elastic plate which will lie under the rail,” i.e., a rail pad. Tusino likewise references elastomeric plate/block-pad structures used with the two-block sleeper arrangement.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 9) It would have been obvious to provide an actual rail pad in the pad area because providing an elastic plate/pad beneath the rail is a known technique for vibration isolation and load distribution, as taught by Van der Houwen’s elastic plate under the rail and consistent with Tusino’s elastomeric block-pad teachings.
CLAIM 10 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of any of claim 1, wherein the rail support comprises a first projection and a second projection, each configured to simultaneously engage with the rail fastening system to thereby couple the rail to the rail support.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10 Additional Limitation 10A: “rail support comprises a first projection and a second projection” Batchell teaches insert 11 defining a T-slot 15 with two opposed “flanges 19,” which are projections on opposite sides of the slot.
Additional Limitation 10B: “each configured to simultaneously engage with the rail fastening system” Batchell teaches the retaining block 17 with T-head 16 and bolt 29 received in the slot and configured to engage the flanges 19, thereby providing engagement with both projections as part of the fastening structure within the slot.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 10) It would have been obvious to provide two opposed projections on the rail support (e.g., opposing flanges analogous to Batchell’s flanges 19) to allow the rail fastening system to engage both projections simultaneously, thereby increasing fastening stability and resistance to loosening, because Batchell teaches that such opposed-projection engagement in a groove/slot is a known, predictable approach for robust rail fastening.
CLAIM 11 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the slab is formed from fiber reinforced concrete.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11 Additional Limitation 11A: “slab is formed from fiber reinforced concrete” Tusino teaches the base body is a “concrete supporting slab 101.” Tusino does not expressly specify fiber reinforcement in the cited portion. However, selection of fiber reinforced concrete as an alternative concrete formulation for a precast rail-supporting slab would have been an obvious material substitution to improve crack resistance and toughness of a concrete slab used for rail support, particularly for precast track modules.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 11) It would have been obvious to use fiber reinforced concrete in place of ordinary concrete for Tusino’s concrete supporting slab 101 to improve durability and crack resistance under repeated loading, while preserving the same slab-and-groove-and-block architecture.
CLAIM 12 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 11, wherein the slab is formed from ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12 Additional Limitation 12A: “slab is formed from ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete” Once it is obvious to form the slab from fiber reinforced concrete (claim 11), selecting an ultra-high performance class of fiber reinforced concrete would have been an obvious further optimization/substitution to increase strength and fatigue performance for a rail-supporting slab, which is a predictable material selection based on desired mechanical performance.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 12) It would have been obvious to select an ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete to further increase slab strength and durability (enabling lighter/thinner slabs and improved fatigue resistance) while maintaining the same slab and rail-support structural arrangement of Tusino.
CLAIM 13 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the slab has a length no greater than 12 m, and preferably no greater than 8 m, and even more preferably no greater than 4 m.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13 Additional Limitation 13A: “slab has a length no greater than 12 m” Tusino teaches a modular rail-supporting slab system (supporting slab 101) for track installation. Such precast modular slabs are routinely dimensioned for transport/handling and installation as modules. Carnelli similarly teaches a “prefabricated modular member 1” having a reinforced concrete platform (platform 2). It would have been obvious to select a slab length of no greater than 12 m to enable practical transport and installation of the prefabricated slab module.
Additional Limitation 13B: “preferably no greater than 8 m” / “even more preferably no greater than 4 m” To the extent these “preferably” clauses are treated as additional limiting ranges, it would likewise have been obvious to further limit the slab length to common modular dimensions (e.g., ≤8 m and/or ≤4 m) to further improve handling and modular installation logistics for prefabricated slab members, consistent with the modular approach taught by Tusino and Carnelli.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 13) It would have been obvious to select shorter slab lengths (≤12 m, ≤8 m, ≤4 m) to facilitate shipping, staging, and installation of prefabricated modular slabs, consistent with Tusino’s modular slab system and Carnelli’s prefabricated modular member 1.
CLAIM 14 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4, AND 3)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein each rail support comprises a plurality of elongate anchors, each configured to protrude into the slab, to thereby secure the rail support to the slab.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14 Additional Limitation 14A: “each rail support comprises a plurality of elongate anchors… protrude into the slab… secure the rail support to the slab” Van der Houwen teaches trays used for embedding a rail support block assembly into surrounding hardenable material, where the tray includes “anchoring members 81” that are embedded in the hardenable material poured around the tray. Van der Houwen further teaches an inner tray 90 that includes anchoring members “91, 92.” These anchoring members are protruding formations used to mechanically secure the embedded tray/rail block structure into the surrounding slab material. It would have been obvious to provide Tusino’s rail-bearing blocks 30 with such protruding anchoring members (or equivalent elongate anchors) extending into the slab material to increase resistance to pullout and to secure the rail support blocks within the slab housings/basins 3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 14) It would have been obvious to incorporate protruding anchor members (as taught by Van der Houwen’s anchoring members 81, 91, 92) to secure the rail support block more robustly within the slab, reducing risk of loosening under cyclic loads and improving durability of the rail support arrangement.
CLAIM 15 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the height of the slab is no greater than 15 cm, and preferably no greater than 11 cm.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 15 Additional Limitation 15A: “height… no greater than 15 cm” Carnelli teaches a reinforced concrete platform (platform 2) as part of a prefabricated modular member 1 used for rails (rails 7). Such platforms are designed in view of installation constraints and can be dimensioned to meet desired thickness targets. It would have been obvious to select slab thickness/height not greater than 15 cm as a predictable design optimization to reduce weight/excavation and improve installation practicality while maintaining adequate structural performance using appropriate reinforcement/material selection.
Additional Limitation 15B: “preferably no greater than 11 cm” To the extent treated as a limiting sub-range, it would similarly have been obvious to further reduce slab thickness (e.g., to ≤11 cm) for the same reasons—reduced excavation depth, reduced slab mass, and improved installation logistics—particularly in a slab-based rail support arrangement where the slab’s primary function is to support rail loads through distributed support blocks/hardware (Tusino’s slab 101 with blocks 30 and fastening member 32; Carnelli’s platform 2 with transverse guides 11 and screws 10).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 15) It would have been obvious to choose a reduced slab height (≤15 cm and even ≤11 cm) to reduce system mass and installation depth while still providing adequate support using the known slab-based support and embedded fastening/guide structures of Tusino and Carnelli.
CLAIM 16 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 1, wherein the slab further comprises one or more secondary transverse grooves in which no rail supports are mounted.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 16 Additional Limitation 16A: “slab further comprises one or more secondary transverse grooves in which no rail supports are mounted” Tusino teaches that the supporting slab can have “grooves 4 implemented in extrados” and that such grooves are “transversally with respect to the direction of positioning of the rails 6.” Tusino further explains grooves 4 are for allowing passage of cables and/or ventilation and are not described as housings for rail-bearing blocks 30. Thus, grooves 4 constitute secondary transverse grooves in which no rail supports are mounted.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 16) Tusino already teaches providing transverse grooves 4 for utilities/ventilation without mounting rail-bearing blocks, and it would have been obvious to include such grooves in a slab-based rail support arrangement to accommodate utilities and/or ventilation and thereby improve installation integration and maintainability.
CLAIM 17 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 16, wherein the width of each secondary transverse groove is greater than the width of each primary transverse groove.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 17 Additional Limitation 17A: “width of each secondary transverse groove is greater than… each primary” Tusino teaches grooves 4 provided for cable passage/ventilation (functional utility grooves), which would be selected to accommodate cables and thus can be dimensioned larger than the housings/basins 3 that are specifically configured to house rail-bearing blocks 30. Therefore, it would have been obvious to dimension the utility groove 4 to be wider than the rail-block housing/groove 3 to ensure sufficient clearance for cable routing/ventilation while maintaining the rail-block recess size appropriate for the rail-bearing blocks.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 17) It would have been obvious to make the cable/utility transverse groove wider than the rail-block groove to satisfy the different functional requirements (utility clearance vs. rail block housing), and Tusino explicitly teaches the different functions (basin 3 for blocks 30; groove 4 for cables/ventilation).
CLAIM 18 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 2, 4)
The rail support arrangement of claim 16, wherein the distance between each secondary transverse groove is no less than 0.75 m.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 18 Additional Limitation 18A: “distance between each secondary transverse groove is no less than 0.75 m” Tusino teaches providing transverse grooves 4 for cable passage/ventilation in a modular slab. The spacing between such grooves is a predictable design parameter that would be selected to (i) provide sufficient utility routing/ventilation functionality and (ii) preserve slab structural strength by not excessively weakening the slab with overly frequent grooves. It would have been obvious to space the grooves at least 0.75 m apart to maintain slab integrity while still providing periodic access/utility routing features.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 18) It would have been obvious to select a minimum spacing (≥0.75 m) between transverse utility grooves to reduce weakening of the slab and preserve structural performance while still enabling the intended utility/ventilation functionality taught by Tusino’s grooves 4.
================================================================================ REJECTION 2 Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tusino (Reference 1) in view of Van der Houwen (Reference 3) and further in view of Carnelli (Reference 2) and further in view of Batchell (Reference 4).
CLAIM 19 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 3, 2, AND 4)
A rail support system comprising: a first rail support arrangement; a second rail support arrangement; and a stiffening bar adapted to couple a rail support of the first rail support arrangement to a rail support of the second rail support arrangement, wherein each of the first rail support arrangement and the second rail support arrangement comprises: a slab having two or more primary transverse grooves; and a plurality of rail supports, each rail support being mounted in a respective primary transverse groove and comprising at least one projection configured to engage with a rail fastening system, received in the respective primary transverse groove, that couples a rail to the rail support so as to restrict or prevent a movement of the rail in a direction (x) perpendicular to the direction (y) of the respective primary transverse groove.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 19
Limitation 19A: “A rail support system comprising: a first rail support arrangement; a second rail support arrangement” Tusino teaches modular supporting slabs (supporting slab 101) used as modules for track installation; a rail support system is formed by multiple such slab modules arranged along the track (i.e., first and second slab modules/arrangements).
Limitation 19B: “and a stiffening bar adapted to couple a rail support of the first… to a rail support of the second…” Van der Houwen teaches that “pairs of resilient rail block assemblies are interconnected by a transverse tie bar,” and further teaches positioning transverse tie bars to extend into each of two block moulds so that the tie bar ends are integrated in the blocks. This teaches a bar element used to physically couple one rail support block to another rail support block. Thus, Van der Houwen teaches a stiffening bar concept (transverse tie bar) adapted to couple one rail support (block assembly) to another rail support. Applying this to Tusino’s adjacent slab modules would yield a stiffening bar coupling a rail support block 30 of a first slab module to a rail support block 30 of a second slab module.
Limitation 19C: “wherein each of the first… and the second… comprises: a slab having two or more primary transverse grooves” For each arrangement, Tusino teaches a supporting slab 101 having pairs of housings/basins 3 (at least two) that house rail-bearing blocks 30. Carnelli further teaches transverse guide structures (guides 11 transverse to rails 7) embedded in a concrete platform 2 for receiving fastener screws 10. This supports the “primary transverse groove/guide” character of the groove structures.
Limitation 19D: “and a plurality of rail supports… mounted… and comprising at least one projection configured to engage with a rail fastening system… that couples a rail to the rail support…” Tusino teaches rail-bearing blocks 30 mounted in the slab basins 3, with the block bearing fastening member 32 for rail 6. Batchell teaches projections (flanges 19) in a slot (T-slot 15) engaged by fastening components (retaining block 17 with T-head 16; bolt 29) located within the groove/slot, to couple the rail to the support. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for each slab arrangement in the system to use such projection-and-fastener engagement structures for coupling rails to the rail supports within the groove.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 19) It would have been obvious to interconnect rail support blocks on adjacent modular slabs with a bar element to improve system rigidity and reduce relative motion between adjacent support units. Van der Houwen explicitly teaches interconnecting pairs of rail block assemblies using a transverse tie bar to provide an interconnected pair. Applying that known interconnection concept to Tusino’s modular slab system (supporting slab 101 with rail-bearing blocks 30) would predictably yield a stiffening bar that couples a rail support of a first slab arrangement to a rail support of a second slab arrangement.
CLAIM 20 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 3, 2, AND 4)
The rail support system of claim 19, wherein the stiffening bar is configured to distribute a shear stress between the first and second rail support arrangements.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 20 Additional Limitation 20A: “stiffening bar… distribute a shear stress between the first and second…” Van der Houwen teaches using a transverse tie bar to interconnect pairs of rail block assemblies, including integrating tie bar ends into blocks. A tie bar interconnection between two support blocks functions as a load-transfer member that distributes relative forces (including shear-type loads) between the interconnected supports, thereby reducing differential displacement between the supports.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 20) It would have been obvious to configure the interconnecting bar (tie bar) so that it transfers/distributes shear between adjacent slab arrangements because that is a predictable mechanical consequence and design objective of interconnecting adjacent support members with a bar, and Van der Houwen expressly teaches using a transverse tie bar to interconnect pairs of support blocks (thereby transferring loads between them).
================================================================================ REJECTION 3 Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tusino (Reference 1) in view of Batchell (Reference 4) and further in view of Carnelli (Reference 2) and further in view of Van der Houwen (Reference 3).
CLAIM 21 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 4, 2, AND 3)
A rail securing system comprising: a rail support arrangement or a rail support system, wherein the rail support arrangement comprises: a slab having two or more primary transverse grooves; and a plurality of rail supports, each rail support being mounted in a respective primary transverse groove and comprising at least one projection configured to engage with a rail fastening system, received in the respective primary transverse groove, that couples a rail to the rail support so as to restrict or prevent a movement of the rail in a direction (x) perpendicular to the direction (Y) of the respective primary transverse groove, wherein the rail support system comprises: the rail support arrangement and a stiffening bar adapted to couple a rail support of the rail support arrangement to a rail support of another rail support arrangement; and one or more rail fastening systems, each rail fastening system being configured to: engage with an upper surface of the rail support of the rail support arrangement or the rail support system, and couple a rail to the rail support, so as to restrict or prevent movement of the rail in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the respective primary transverse groove.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 21
Limitation 21A: “A rail securing system comprising: a rail support arrangement or a rail support system” Tusino teaches a slab-and-block rail support module (slab 101 with basins 3 and rail-bearing blocks 30 bearing fastening member 32 for rail 6), which corresponds to a rail support arrangement. Tusino also teaches modular installation with multiple slabs, supporting the “system” context.
Limitation 21B: “wherein the rail support arrangement comprises: a slab having two or more primary transverse grooves” Tusino teaches a slab 101 having one or more pairs of housings/basins 3 (at least two) for housing rail-bearing blocks 30. Carnelli teaches guides 11 embedded in a concrete platform 2 and oriented transverse to rails 7, supporting the transverse groove/guide concept.
Limitation 21C: “and a plurality of rail supports… mounted… comprising at least one projection… engage with a rail fastening system…” Tusino teaches rail-bearing blocks 30 housed in basins 3 and bearing fastening member 32 for rail 6. Batchell teaches projections (flanges 19) in slot 15 engaged by fastener components (retaining block 17/T-head 16; bolt 29) received in the slot.
Limitation 21D: “wherein the rail support system comprises: the rail support arrangement and a stiffening bar… to another rail support arrangement” Van der Houwen teaches interconnecting pairs of resilient rail block assemblies by a transverse tie bar, i.e., a bar coupling a rail support to another rail support.
Limitation 21E: “and one or more rail fastening systems… configured to: engage with an upper surface of the rail support… and couple a rail to the rail support… restrict movement…” Tusino teaches the rail-bearing block 30 bears fastening member 32 for rail 6 (i.e., a rail fastening system coupling rail to the block/rail support). Van der Houwen teaches integrating rail fastener members into a block (fastener members embedded/fixed in block 20) and optionally positioning an elastic plate under the rail. Batchell teaches rail fastening components associated with the slot/insert that clamp the rail to the support structure.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 21) It would have been obvious to implement Tusino’s slab-and-block arrangement using Batchell’s projection/slot engagement for robust groove-contained fastening and to use Carnelli’s transverse guide orientation for embedded fastening structures to facilitate transverse positioning and fastening consistency. It also would have been obvious to include one or more rail fastening systems engaging the rail support surface to couple the rail, as explicitly taught by Tusino’s fastening member 32 for rail 6 and Van der Houwen’s embedded rail fastener members in block 20. Further, it would have been obvious to include an optional stiffening bar coupling adjacent supports as taught by Van der Houwen’s transverse tie bar interconnecting pairs of rail block assemblies, to reduce relative movement and improve overall rigidity.
CLAIM 22 (REJECTED UNDER §103 OVER REFERENCES 1, 4, 2, AND 3)
A rail system comprising: a rail support arrangement or a rail support system, wherein the rail support arrangement comprises: a slab having two or more primary transverse grooves; and a plurality of rail supports, each rail support being mounted in a respective primary transverse groove and comprising at least one projection configured to engage with a rail fastening system, received in the respective primary transverse groove, that couples a rail to the rail support so as to restrict or prevent a movement of the rail in a direction (x) perpendicular to the direction (Y) of the respective primary transverse groove, wherein the rail support system comprises: the rail support arrangement and a stiffening bar adapted to couple a rail support of the rail support arrangement to a rail support of another rail support arrangement; one or more rail fastening systems, each rail fastening system being configured to: engage with an upper surface of the rail support of the rail support arrangement or the rail support system, and couple a rail to the rail support, so as to restrict or prevent movement of the rail in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the respective primary transverse groove; and one or more rails, each rail being coupled by the one or more rail fastening systems to one or more rail supports.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 22
Limitation 22A: “A rail system comprising: a rail support arrangement or a rail support system” See claim 21 analysis for the arrangement/system mapping (Tusino slab 101 with basins 3 and rail-bearing blocks 30).
Limitation 22B: “slab having two or more primary transverse grooves; and a plurality of rail supports… with projection… engage with rail fastening system…” See claim 21 mapping above (Tusino + Carnelli + Batchell).
Limitation 22C: “rail support system comprises… stiffening bar… to another rail support arrangement” Van der Houwen teaches interconnecting pairs of resilient rail block assemblies by a transverse tie bar.
Limitation 22D: “one or more rail fastening systems… engage… and couple a rail…” Tusino teaches rail-bearing blocks 30 bearing fastening member 32 for rail 6. Van der Houwen teaches rail fastener members embedded/fixed in block 20. Batchell teaches rail fastening via slot/retaining structures.
Limitation 22E: “and one or more rails, each rail being coupled… to one or more rail supports” Tusino explicitly teaches rail 6 coupled/fastened via fastening member 32 to rail-bearing blocks 30 housed in basins 3 of supporting slab 101.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / MODIFY (CLAIM 22) It would have been obvious to provide a rail system including rails coupled to the slab-based rail supports via fastening systems because Tusino already teaches rails (rail 6) coupled to rail-bearing blocks 30 using fastening member 32 in a supporting slab 101, and Batchell/Van der Houwen provide known fastening interface structures (slot projections and embedded fastener members) for robust coupling. It further would have been obvious to optionally interconnect adjacent supports with a bar (Van der Houwen transverse tie bar) to increase rigidity and reduce relative movement between adjacent support units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615