DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 9, & 10 is/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.
Regarding claim 2 the limitation “at least” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not certain if the limitation must apply only to the region of the contact surface or if it must also apply elsewhere. Amending the claim to remove “at least” would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 3 it is unclear what “the basic geometry of the wing rail section” refers to and further what the moment of inertia of that would be.
Regarding claim 4 the phrase “preferably” renders the claim unclear because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are necessary or optional. Amending the claim to remove the phrase “preferably” and positively affirming what is being claimed would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 9 the three different sets of required values for B render the scope of the claim unclear because it is not clear if B must be > 60mm, >70mm, or 75mm < B < 85mm. Amending this claim to only use one range of values would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 10 the different sets of required values for D are unclear for the same reasons why the different ranges for B in claim 9 were unclear. Amending the claim to only recite a single range for D would overcome this rejection.
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, 2, 5, 9, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. (EP 1455016 A2, herein after referred to as Scholz) in view of Rohlmann et al. (CN 107974877 A, herein after referred to as Rohlmann).
Regarding claim 1 Scholz teaches a frog comprising wing rails (FIG. 5: 5 & 6), which comprise at least a rail head (FIG. 3: depicted top of 6) and a rail web (FIG. 3: depicted middle of 6), and further comprises a frog tip (FIG. 1: 2; FIG. 3: 3 & 4) adjustably arranged between the wing rails (FIG. 3: depicted adjustable by 25), whereby in the area of the frog tip extends a wheel transfer zone between the frog tip and the wing rail (FIG. 1: depicted), wherein the wing rails are detachably connected to each other (FIG. 5: depicted), but does not teach that and in that each wing rail comprises or consists of a wing rail section that is produced from a forged block and extends separately from the frog tip at least along the length of the wheel transfer zone.
However, Rohlmann does teach that and in that each wing rail comprises or consists of a wing rail section that is produced from a forged block and extends separately from the frog tip at least along the length of the wheel transfer zone (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the forged construction taught by Rohlmann with the adjustable frog of Scholz in order to produce a stronger frog.
Regarding claim 2 Scholz as modified above teaches that area moments of inertia (Ix,Iy) in cross-sections extending vertically relative to the longitudinal axis of the wing rail sections at least in the region of the contact surface of the frog tip to the wing rail section are equal or substantially equal, and deviate from each other by a maximum of ± 20 %, in particular by a maximum of ±10 % (Scholz FIG. 5: cross sections do not appear to change substantially past a point).
Regarding claim 5 Scholz as modified above teaches that he running edge course of the frog tip merges with the basic track trajectory defined by the running edge of the section (Scholz, FIG. 1: depicted) but does not explicitly teach that this happens at a distance E from the functional frog tip, with 80 mm < E < 150 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholz as modified above to use a value of E within a range of 80mm to 150mm, so as to achieve an optimal rail frog operational safety since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9 Scholz as modified above teaches that the frog tip comprises an in particular cuboid base body (Scholz, FIG. 3: depicted at the bottom of combined 3 & 4) with, originating from the latter, a tip body with a triangular cross-section (FIG. 3: depicted with combined 3 & 4 top region having a substantially triangular shape), but does not explicitly teach that in that the width B of the base body is B > 60 mm, in particular B > 70 mm, preferably 75 mm < B <85 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholz as modified above to use a width B within a range of 75mm to 85mm, so as to achieve an optimally smooth transfer of the rail wheel across the frog since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12 Scholz as modified above teaches that outside of the frog tip the wing rail sections are supported against each other via second distance blocks (Rohlmann, FIG. 7: 54 & 56) machined as one piece with the wing rails from the block (result of the above combination).
Claim(s) 11, 14, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz et al. (EP 1455016 A2, herein after referred to as Scholz) in view of Rohlmann et al. (CN 107974877 A, herein after referred to as Rohlmann) and further in view of Frank (US 4637578 A).
Regarding claim 11 Scholz as modified above does not explicitly teach that the transition region between the frog tip and the wing rail section a cant is produced from the block by metal cutting processing. However, Frank does teach a cant (FIG. 13: 40). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included a cant as taught by Frank in the frog of Scholz as modified above in order to ensure a smooth transition between the frog and regular rail.
Regarding claim 14 Scholz teaches a method for producing wing rails (FIG. 5: 5 & 6) for a frog (FIG. 1: 1) with a movable frog tip (FIG. 1: 2; FIG. 3: 3 & 4), but does not teach wherein at least one section of each of the wing rails is produced from a forged steel block by metal cutting processing, whereby a cant of the running surface is machined out in a region, in which the frog tip contacts the wing rail section.
However, Rohlmann does teach wherein at least one section of each of the wing rails is produced from a forged steel block by metal cutting processing (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the forging process of Rohlmann with the rail frog of Scholz in order to produce a more durable rail frog.
Furthermore, Frank teaches a cant of the running surface is machined out in a region, in which the frog tip contacts the wing rail section (FIG. 13: 40). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included a cant as taught by Frank in the frog of Scholz as modified above in order to ensure a smooth transition between the frog and regular rail.
Regarding claim 18 Scholz as modified above teaches that the wing rail section (20, 22) is machined from the block in a manner so that the area moments of inertia along cross sections extending vertical to the longitudinal axis of the wing rail section at least in the region of the contact surface of the frog tip to the wing rail section are equal or substantially equal, and differ from each other by a maximum of ± 20 %, in particular a maximum of ±10% (Scholz FIG. 5: cross sections do not appear to change substantially past a point).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-8, 13, & 15-17 is/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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, & 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 3 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising corresponding to the mass of material in an area of the wing rail section that results in the area from a change of the geometry relative to the basic geometry of the wing rail section, equivalent material mass is removed or remains in excess in the area of changed geometry in order to achieve an equal or substantial equal area moment of inertia.
Regarding claim 4 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising the contact surface from the point area of the frog tip to the wing rail section is a section of an area recessed relative to the wing rail section's running edge, such as a milled cutout, in the flank of the wing rail section, whereby preferably corresponding to the mass of the material removed to form the recessed region, excess material remains on the wing rail section, in particular at the side of the wing rail section that faces away from the frog tip.
Regarding claim 6 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising an anti-derail device originating from the wing rail, in whose frontmost area the frog tip is adjustably arranged, wherein the anti-derail device is integrally machined from the block.
Regarding claim 10 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising at least one passage opening for a rod element, such as a locking rod or detector rod, that is embodied in the web of the wing rail, wherein the web of the wing rail section at least in the area of the passage opening has a thickness D with D > 30 mm, in particular D > 40 mm, especially preferably 40 mm <D< 60 mm, very especially preferably 45 mm < D < 50 mm.
Regarding claim 13 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog wherein the wing rail section is machined from the block in such a manner that in regions where the geometry of the wing rail section deviates from its basic geometry, such as a cant or the region recessed relative to the running edge, corresponding to the mass of material that results from the change of geometry, equivalent material mass in an adjacent area of the wing rail section is removed or remains in excess relative to the basic geometry.
Regarding claim 15 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising an anti-derail device for the frog tip is machined from the block as one piece with the wing rail section.
Regarding claim 16 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising a flank of the wing rail section extending on the frog tip side is machined out of the block a region that is recessed relative to the running edge and that provides a contact surface for the frog tip.
Regarding claim 17 no prior art made of record teaches a rail frog comprising a wing rail section machined from the block in such a manner that in areas where the geometry of the wing rail section deviates from its basic geometry, such as cant or the region recessed relative to the running edge, corresponding to the mass of the material that results from the change in the geometric course, equivalent material mass in an adjacent area in the wing rail section is removed or remains in excess relative to the basic geometry, so that the moment of inertia of the wing rail section remains unchanged or substantially unchanged
A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach rail frogs of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Dickson can be reached on (571) 272-7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614