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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "9" and "16" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 1.
Reference characters "9" and "17" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 1.
Reference characters "9" and "15" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 1.
Reference characters "18" and "u" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 1.
Reference characters "7" and "8" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 1.
Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first recess being “formed as rounded” as set forth in claim 22; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 23-24, 32, 35, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phase “formed as” should be removed from line 5 of claim 1.
The phrase “arranged as” should be removed from claims 23-24.
The phrase “arranged and formed as” should be removed from claim 32.
The phrase “arranged and” should be removed from claim 35.
The term “length)” should be replaced with the term - -length- - in claim 37.
The phrases “of the first recess” and “established to be” should be removed from claim 37.
These corrections are for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 is 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 22 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the first recess is “formed as rounded”. The claim fails to define the metes and bounds of this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 21-25, 31-37, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell (1,781,867).
Per claim 21, Bell shows a rail wheel including a wheel web 13, a hub 11, and a wheel rim 12 having a running surface and flange. The wheel is forged, and material is recessed out (at 14) of the web 13 to form solid sections (i.e. spokes 15) between the recesses 14 in the circumferential direction. The recesses 14 also extend transversely to the radial direction (i.e. extend through the thickness of the web, i.e. axially) of the web 13. At least one first distance and one second distance between a center point and an edge of the recess 14 differ in size (see Figure 1).
Per claim 22, the recess 14 is “formed as rounded” (i.e. the recess 14 includes rounded corners).
Per claim 23-24, the wheel only has a single web 13.
Per claim 25, the center of mass of the wheel is arranged at least approximately at the geometric center thereof.
Per claims 31-35, there are four recesses 14 arranged symmetrically in the web 13 with respect to first (i.e. axial) and second (i.e. radial) axes of the wheel.
Per claim 36, the recesses 14 are formed in the shape of a circular ring sector.
Per claim 37, an arc length, defined by a center radius of the recess 14 is greater than an eighth and less than a quarter of the circumference of a circle defined by the center radius.
Per claims 39-40, the limitations that the recesses 14 are “milled out” or “punched out” are method steps in a product claim, and thus receive no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 40, the recesses 14 are punched out of the web 13.
Per claim 41, the wheel of Bell would inherently be mounted on a rail chassis.
Per claim 42, Bell discloses a method of making a rail wheel including forging the wheel and recessing material out of the wheel web 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claims 21-25, 31-37, and 39-42 above, and further in view of Brown (435,963).
Bell does not show the recesses 14 having at least one first end section “formed as semicircular”.
Brown teaches the use of a rail wheel including recesses within a web section, wherein the recesses have at least a first end having a semicircular shape. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the recesses of Bell in the manner taught by Brown, as a functional equivalent shape, dependent upon the desired appearance of the wheel and wheel thereof.
Claim(s) 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claims 21-25, 31-37, and 39-42 above, and further in view of Arndt et al (2006/0102257).
Bell does not disclose the chemical properties of the forged material used to form the rail wheel.
Arndt et al teaches the use of a forged material including less than 0.6% carbon (claim 26), an upper yield point greater than 520 MPa (claim 27), a tensile strength greater than 820 MPa (claim 28), and a notch impact energy greater than 12 J (claim 29). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the rail wheel of Bell from the material of Arndt et al, dependent upon the desired physical and chemical properties of the wheel such that said wheel does not fail during use, and dependent upon availability and cost.
While Bell as modified by Arndt et al does not disclose the fracture toughness of the forged material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the rail wheel of Bell as modified by Arndt et al with any fracture toughness based on the same reasoning above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show the structure of rail wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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 (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 R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615