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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete “any of” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1700954 to Carnelli.
Regarding claim 1, Carnelli discloses a method of installing a rail support arrangement upon which a plurality of rails can be supported, the rail support arrangement comprising a slab 1 and a plurality of rail supports 7 respectively mounted in the slab (e.g. see Fig. 7), the method comprising:
preparing an installation area (e.g. see [0069] – [0079]), being an area to which the rail support arrangement is to be installed (as evident from Fig. 7), wherein the installation area is formed of compacted ground ([0069]; providing, directly onto the compacted ground of the installation area, a bedding layer for mounting to the slab of the rail support arrangement (e.g. see [0074]); and
mounting the slab of the rail support arrangement to the bedding layer (as evident from Fig. 7), to thereby install the rail support arrangement (as evident from Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of preparing an installation area comprises excavating or milling from a road surface to define the installation area (as evident from Fig. 7, and see [0069] – [0079]).
Regarding claim 6, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of positioning the slab at a desired location with respect to the installation area, wherein the step of positioning the slab at the desired location is performed before the step of providing the bedding layer (as evident from [0074], the mortar is injected after the slab is in position).
Regarding claim 7, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the step of providing the bedding layer comprises pumping or injecting the bedding layer beneath the position of the slab (as evident from [0074], the mortar is injected after the slab is in position).
Regarding claim 18, Carnelli discloses the method of any of claim 1, further comprising, after mounting the slab of the rail support arrangement to the bedding layer, securing a plurality of rails to the rail support arrangement (e.g. see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 18, wherein, if the step of preparing an installation area comprises excavating or milling from a road surface to define the installation area, the uppermost part of the plurality of rails lies in or below the plane in which the uppermost surface of the unexcavated or non-milled road surface lies (as evident from Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of mounting the slab of the rail support arrangement to the bedding layer comprises embedding the slab in the bedding layer (as evident from the final product of Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 21, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bedding layer is formed of a controlled low strength material (as evident from [0075] wherein microbeton BS91 Ancora is cement based in view of first para page 5 of the instant spec).
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) 3-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli.
Regarding claim 3, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the step of preparing an installation area comprises excavating or milling from the road surface to a depth (as shown in Fig. 7) but does not explicitly disclose that the depth is no more than 400 mm (or 40 cm) to define the installation area. Rather, Carnelli discloses the slab to be 10 to 20 cm thick (e.g. see [0070]). Therefore, in view of the proportions suggested in Fig. 7, with the slap occupying the overwhelming depth of the trench, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the claimed depth with the motivation of maintaining adequate spacing for the slab and corresponding or supporting structure. Moreover, Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such dimension of the trench with the motivation of maintaining adequate spacing for the slab and corresponding or supporting structure.
Regarding claim 4, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the height of the slab is no greater than 150 mm (15 cm) (see [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose that the height of the bedding layer, after mounting of the slab to the bedding layer, is no greater than 100 mm. However, the “mere scaling up” or “scaling down” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such dimension of the trench with the motivation of maintaining adequate vertical support for the slab and corresponding or supporting structure.
Regarding claim 8, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the slab of the rail support arrangement is formed of a reinforced concrete (see [0052]). However, Carnelli does not expressly disclose that the reinforced concrete is fiber reinforced concrete. Nevertheless, Examiner takes official notice that using fiber reinforced concrete as the type of concrete is well known (see MPEP 2144.03). Therefore, in view of such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the fiber reinforced concrete as the type of reinforced concrete with the motivation of strengthening the slab.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli in view of JP 2018091063 to Toshio et al. (“Toshio”).
Regarding claim 9, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose that the slab is formed of an ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of precast concrete members, Toshio discloses such (see para beginning “As shown in FIG. 1”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Toshio, with the motivation of strengthening the slab.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli in view of Toshio and “U” under Non-Patent Documents in the PTO-892 associated with this action titled “Flexural Fatigue Behavior of a Self-Compacting [UHPFRC]” to Al-Azzawi et al. (“Al-Azzawi”).
Regarding claim 10, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the slab has a perpetual flexural fatigue strength of no less than 5 MPa (or at least 5 MPa). Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Toshio discloses a bed of UHPRC as discussed in the rejection of claim 9 with the same motivation therein and Al-Azzawi discloses the recited fatigue strength (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Toshio, with the motivation of strengthening the slab.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli in view of US 20130206853 to Robinson et al. (“Robinson”).
Regarding claim 11, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose after mounting the slab to the bedding layer, providing a first layer of course on top of any and all exposed parts of the bedding layer. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Robinson discloses a layer adjacent the slab and covering the entire bedding (e.g. see Fig. 2, [0021]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Toshio, with the motivation of protecting the bedding layer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli in view of Robinson in further view of US 3587964 to Cork.
Regarding claim 12, Carnelli in view of Robinson discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the uppermost surface of the first layer of course lies in a same plane as the uppermost surface of the slab although seemingly shows such in Fig. 7. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Cork discloses such (see Fig 1 showing top surface of B aligned with top surface of T). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of mitigating collection areas and tripping hazards for workers.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli in view of Robinson and Cork in further view of US 4905896 to Eisenmann et al. (“Eisenmann”).
Regarding claim 13, Carnelli in view of Robinson and Cork discloses the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose after providing the first layer of course on top of any exposed parts of the bedding layer, providing a stress absorbing membrane layer on top of any exposed parts of the slab and the first layer of course. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Eisenmann discloses such (e.g. see layer 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of protecting the bedding surface.
Regarding claim 17, Carnelli in view of Robinson and Cork and Eisenmann discloses the method of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose the stress absorbing membrane is formed of a polymer based material. Nevertheless, Examiner takes official notice that incorporating at least some extent of a polymer based material into the membrane is well known (see MPEP 2144.03). Therefore, in view of such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of enhancing the overall qualities of the railbed.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnelli in view of US 20180023258 to Tusino et al. (“Tusino”).
Regarding claim 22, Carnelli discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose grooves and corresponding features recited therein. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Tusino discloses wherein the rail support arrangement comprises: the slab, which has two or more primary transverse grooves (e.g. 3); and the plurality of rail supports 30, each rail support being mounted in a respective primary transverse groove (e.g. see Fig. 19) 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 perpendicular to the direction of the respective primary transverse groove (as evident from Fig. 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are 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 claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art fails to disclose in combination with the previously disclosed limitations an additional layer of course on top of the membrane layer. The use of such, in combination with the other layers, would only be the product of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666