Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2100487, filed on 01/19/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 and 09/16/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the limitation “and/or of the second actuation system” in Claim 12, line 9. It appears this should read “and/or the second actuation system”. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hardt (US 4716836 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hardt teaches (Fig. 1-7 and 11-14): An assembly for automatic aligning of rails (col. 8, line 67 – col. 9, line 7), comprising: -a first alignment system (clamping unit 12) designed to be placed on a first track element at a first rail (one of the two rails; col. 8, lines 7-18);-a second alignment system (clamping unit 14) designed to be placed on a second track element at a second rail (the other one of the two rails; col. 8, lines 7-18); and -an acquisition system, comprising at least one position sensor (sensors 168, 169, 194, 195) for measuring a position of at least one of the first rail and of the second rail (col. 8, lines 61-67), wherein the first alignment system (12) comprises a first actuation system (lift assembly 64) designed to adjust a position of the first rail (one of the two rails) depending on a position measured by the acquisition system (194, 195)(Fig. 3, 7 and 13; col. 9, lines 24-37; col. 9, line 50 – col. 10, line 6) and/or the second alignment system (14) comprises a second actuating system (lift assembly 64) designed to automatically adjust a position of the second rail (the other of the two rails) depending on a position measured by the acquisition system (194, 195)(each of the clamping units 12, 14 has a lift assembly 64 with a hydraulic cylinder 66 for raising or lowering the rails; col. 4, lines 11-19; col. 8, lines 7-18).
Regarding claim 2, Hardt further teaches (Fig. 1-7 and 11-14): wherein the acquisition system (168, 169, 194, 195) is designed to measure a relative position of the first rail and of the second rail with respect to one another (col. 8, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 12, Hardt further teaches (Fig. 1-7 and 11-14): A method for automatic aligning of rails using an assembly for automatic aligning of rails according to claim1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), comprising placing the first alignment system (clamping unit 12) on the first track element;-placing the second alignment system (clamping unit 14) on the second track element (col. 8, lines 7-18);-acquiring a position of the first rail and/or of the second rail by the acquisition system (sensors 168, 169, 194, 195; col. 8, lines 61-67);-automatically adjusting a position of the first rail and/or of the second rail by the first actuation system (64) and/or the second actuation system (64), so as to align the first rail and the second rail (col. 4, lines 11-19; col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 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 claims and if all claim objections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3 and its depending claim(s) 4-8, the prior art fails to teach that each actuation system comprises at least a pair of actuation cylinders comprising two cylinders, each cylinder of the pair of actuation cylinders being designed to extend on a respective side of the rail, the position of which is to be adjusted, and to move said rail for the purpose of its alignment. While Hardt further teaches (Fig. 1-7 and 11-14): the first alignment system (12) comprises a first actuation system (lift assembly 64) with a hydraulic cylinder (66) and the second alignment system (14) comprises a second actuating system (lift assembly 64) with a hydraulic cylinder (66)(Fig. 3), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Hardt such that each actuation system comprises at least a pair of actuation cylinders comprising two cylinders, each cylinder of the pair of actuation cylinders being designed to extend on a respective side of the rail, the position of which is to be adjusted, and to move said rail for the purpose of its alignment. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that while Hardt further teaches (Fig. 3): a pair of actuation cylinders (hydraulic cylinders 104-107) designed to extend on a respective side of the rail (col. 5, lines 40-46) to move said rail for the purpose of alignment (Fig. 3), the pair of actuation cylinders is only present in Hardt’s first alignment system (clamping unit 12), and not in Hardt’s second alignment system (clamping unit 14). Therefore, only the lift assembly 64 of Hardt can be construed as the actuation system in the first and second alignment systems.
Regarding claim 9 and its depending claim(s) 10-11, the prior art fails to teach each alignment system comprises at least one hook designed to be removably attached to at least one corresponding hook of the track element. While Hardt teaches (Fig. 1-7 and 11-14): a first alignment system (clamping unit 12) designed to be placed on a first track element at a first rail (one of the two rails; col. 8, lines 7-18);-a second alignment system (clamping unit 14) designed to be placed on a second track element at a second rail (the other one of the two rails; col. 8, lines 7-18), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Hardt such that each alignment system comprises at least one hook designed to be removably attached to at least one corresponding hook of the track element. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that both alignment systems (clamping units 12 and 14) of Hardt are affixed to and carried by a beam 16 (Fig. 1). The beam 16 is attached to a boom or crane (not shown) for lifting and lowering the rail welder 10 (col. 3, lines 37-41). The examiner finds no obvious reason to attach to a hook on a track element (i.e. the sleeper) to attach to a corresponding hook on each of the alignment systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of an alignment device for aligning two rails for welding: US-4641818-A, US-4645897-A, US-4753424-A, US-5575416-A, US-6385861-B1, US-6651353-B1, US-6762390-B2, US-8684279-B1, US-10053819-B2, DE-102004005840-B4, ES-2326403-B2, FR-2998310-A1, AT-516827-B1, WO-2020058208-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615