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 statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1 (“Lichtberger”): US 2018/0298564 A1
Reference 2 (“EP3009564”): EP 3 009 564 B2
Reference 3 (“Theurer”): US 4,430,945
Reference 4 (“Ortelli”): EP 0 103 549 A1
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.
REJECTION I – CLAIMS 1-4, 7-9 Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lichtberger (Reference 1) in view of EP3009564 (Reference 2).
The combination relies on Lichtberger for the tamping machine and lifting/lining (lifting-straightening) device having a lifting roller and lifting hook on a common laterally (transversely) displaceable support, and relies on EP3009564 for a rail-engaging tool support that is pivotable about an axis parallel to the tamping machine longitudinal axis using an actuator/drive, which teaches the claimed longitudinal-axis pivoting concept and its implementation with a drive.
────────────────────────────────
A tamping machine for compacting the ballast bed of a track, said tamping machine comprising: tamping units configured to tamp under the track; a lifting-straightening device arranged between running gears configured to lift and straighten tracks and railroad switches; the lifting-straightening device having at least one height-adjustable lifting roller and at least one lifting hook that is height-adjustable independently of the lifting roller; the lifting roller and the lifting hook being arranged on a common console that is guided displaceably transversely to a longitudinal axis of the tamping machine by an adjusting drive; wherein the console is arranged on a guiding slide, with which the console is displaceable transversely to the longitudinal axis of the tamping machine along a transverse guide; and wherein the console is mounted on the guiding slide so as to be pivotally adjustable about a pivot axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tamping machine by a swivel drive. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 1)
A tamping machine for compacting the ballast bed of a track Lichtberger discloses a tamping machine 1 for track work/compacting ballast, including a tamping unit 4 configured to tamp under the track 9.
tamping units configured to tamp under the track Lichtberger expressly shows tamping unit 4 on tamping machine 1 for tamping beneath the track 9.
a lifting-straightening device arranged between running gears configured to lift and straighten tracks and railroad switches Lichtberger discloses a track lifting and lining unit 2 on the tamping machine 1. The tamping machine 1 is described as a switch tamping machine and is movable via running gears 8 on the track 9. The lifting and lining unit 2 is part of the machine’s track correction equipment (lifting/lining) and is arranged on the machine in the region between the running gears 8 (i.e., located between undercarriage/running gear sets as shown for such machines in Lichtberger’s arrangement).
the lifting-straightening device having at least one height-adjustable lifting roller and at least one lifting hook that is height-adjustable independently of the lifting roller Lichtberger discloses a roller pincer 6 (including a lifting roller function at the rail head) and a lifting hook 7, both associated with lifting and lining unit 2. Lichtberger further shows independent vertical actuation/height adjustment via separate vertical guide cylinders: vertical guide cylinder 3 for the roller pincer/roller 6 and hook depth cylinder 13 for lifting hook 7, enabling independent height adjustment of the lifting hook 7 relative to the lifting roller/roller pincer 6.
the lifting roller and the lifting hook being arranged on a common console that is guided displaceably transversely to a longitudinal axis of the tamping machine by an adjusting drive Lichtberger discloses the lifting and lining unit 2 having a common bracket 10 supporting the vertical guide cylinders 3, 13 (for the roller pincer/roller 6 and lifting hook 7, respectively), and further discloses transverse displacement along a guide device/transverse guide 16 via a lifting hook displacement cylinder 17 (i.e., a transverse displacement/adjusting drive). The transverse displacement is in direction H (transverse to the machine/track longitudinal direction).
wherein the console is arranged on a guiding slide, with which the console is displaceable transversely to the longitudinal axis of the tamping machine along a transverse guide Lichtberger teaches that the common bracket 10 is displaceably mounted and moved transversely along the guide device/transverse guide 16 by the displacement cylinder 17. Thus, Lichtberger teaches a console/support (bracket 10) functioning as a slide-mounted structure that is displaceable along a transverse guide 16.
wherein the console is mounted on the guiding slide so as to be pivotally adjustable about a pivot axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tamping machine by a swivel drive Lichtberger does not expressly disclose pivoting the common console (bracket 10) about a pivot axis parallel to the tamping machine longitudinal axis.
EP3009564 teaches a track tamping machine 2 having a main lifting/lining arrangement 4 and an auxiliary lifting arrangement 3 including a telescopic support/arm 10, 20 that is rotatable/pivotable about an axis 28 that is parallel to the tamping machine longitudinal axis, and EP3009564 provides an actuator/drive 16 for setting/adjusting the swivel angle (i.e., providing driven pivoting about axis 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lichtberger’s common bracket/console 10 (carrying the lifting tools 6, 7) so that the tool-carrying console is mounted to be pivotable about a pivot axis parallel to the tamping machine longitudinal axis, and to provide a swivel drive (e.g., hydraulic actuator) as taught by EP3009564’s drive 16 acting about pivot axis 28, thereby enabling the tool-carrying structure to pivot about the longitudinal axis while retaining the transverse displacement along transverse guide 16.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 1)
EP3009564 teaches that providing a rail-engaging tool support that pivots about an axis parallel to the tamping machine longitudinal axis (axis 28) using a drive (16) enables controlled positional adjustment of the tool support relative to the main lifting/lining arrangement 4. Incorporating that same longitudinal-axis pivoting concept into Lichtberger’s tool-carrying console (bracket 10) would have been an obvious predictable modification to provide an additional controlled degree of freedom for positioning/clearance of the rail engaging tools (roller pincer/roller 6 and lifting hook 7) during lifting/lining operations and while approaching rail features, while keeping Lichtberger’s proven transverse displacement arrangement (16/17) for positioning at the rail. This would merely apply a known pivoting mounting/drive arrangement (28/16) from an analogous tamping-machine lifting arrangement to Lichtberger’s analogous tool support, yielding the predictable result of a tool console capable of both transverse displacement and longitudinal-axis pivoting.
──────────────────────────────── 2. The tamping machine according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting drive is a transverse displacement cylinder with a displacement travel sensor, the lifting roller is height-adjustable by a vertical lifting cylinder with a stroke path sensor, and the lifting hook is height-adjustable by a vertical lifting cylinder with a stroke path sensor. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 2)
wherein the adjusting drive is a transverse displacement cylinder with a displacement travel sensor Lichtberger discloses displacement cylinder 17 providing transverse displacement of the bracket/tool support along guide device 16, and further discloses displacement travel sensor 22 associated with the displacement cylinder 17.
the lifting roller is height-adjustable by a vertical lifting cylinder with a stroke path sensor Lichtberger discloses vertical guide cylinder 3 for vertical adjustment of the lifting roller/roller pincer 6, and a lifting travel (stroke path) sensor 20 for that cylinder.
the lifting hook is height-adjustable by a vertical lifting cylinder with a stroke path sensor Lichtberger discloses vertical guide cylinder / hook depth cylinder 13 for vertical adjustment of the lifting hook 7, and a lifting travel (stroke path) sensor 21 for that cylinder.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 2)
Lichtberger expressly teaches providing travel/stroke sensors (20, 21, 22) on the same hydraulic cylinders (3, 13, 17) that drive the vertical and transverse positioning of the lifting tools, enabling positional feedback and control. Since the claim 1 combination uses Lichtberger’s transverse and vertical tool positioning arrangement, it would have been obvious (and in fact already taught by Lichtberger) to employ the transverse displacement cylinder 17 with travel sensor 22 and the vertical cylinders 3 and 13 with stroke sensors 20 and 21 for predictable automation/position feedback benefits in the modified system.
──────────────────────────────── 3. The tamping machine according to claim 1, wherein a rotation angle sensor is operatively associated with the swivel drive and/or a stroke path sensor is operatively associated with a swivel cylinder of the swivel drive. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 3)
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and includes all limitations of claim 1 as addressed above for the combination of Lichtberger and EP3009564, including the swivel drive provided consistent with EP3009564’s pivot axis 28 and actuator/drive 16.
wherein a rotation angle sensor is operatively associated with the swivel drive and/or a stroke path sensor is operatively associated with a swivel cylinder of the swivel drive EP3009564 teaches a swivel/pivot about an axis 28 using an actuator/drive 16 to set the swivel angle of the support/arm 10, 20 relative to the main lifting/lining arrangement 4 (i.e., a swivel drive for angular setting).
Lichtberger teaches the use of travel/stroke sensors associated with hydraulic positioning cylinders (e.g., stroke sensors 20, 21 and travel sensor 22 on cylinders 3, 13, 17) to provide measured actual values for control of tool positioning.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide, in the claim 1 combination, either: (1) a rotation angle sensor operatively associated with the swivel drive (i.e., associated with the pivot about axis 28), and/or (2) a stroke path sensor operatively associated with the swivel cylinder (i.e., the hydraulic actuator implementing the swivel drive, such as drive 16), using the same type of sensor approach taught by Lichtberger (20/21/22) to monitor and control cylinder-driven positioning.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 3)
Once the claim 1 combination provides a powered swivel adjustment (pivoting about longitudinal-parallel axis 28 using drive 16), it would have been obvious to include position feedback for that swivel degree of freedom for the same predictable reasons Lichtberger includes feedback sensors for the other tool positioning axes: namely, to measure/confirm position, improve repeatability, and enable automated or semi-automated control of the swivel position. Using a rotation angle sensor at the pivot (28) and/or a stroke path sensor on the swivel actuator (16) is a straightforward application of Lichtberger’s sensor-equipped cylinder teaching (20/21/22) to the additional cylinder-driven axis introduced from EP3009564.
──────────────────────────────── 4. The tamping machine according to claim 2, wherein the displacement travel sensor of the displacement cylinder, the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting roller, and the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting hook are each integrated in the associated cylinder. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 4)
wherein the displacement travel sensor of the displacement cylinder, the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting roller, and the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting hook are each integrated in the associated cylinder Lichtberger teaches displacement travel sensor 22 associated with displacement cylinder 17, stroke path sensor 20 associated with vertical cylinder 3 for the roller/roller pincer 6, and stroke path sensor 21 associated with vertical cylinder 13 for lifting hook 7, and further teaches integrating such sensors into the respective cylinders as part of the robust positioning/sensing arrangement.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 4)
Lichtberger teaches integrating the sensors with the respective cylinders driving tool motion (17/22; 3/20; 13/21) to provide a compact, reliable positional feedback arrangement. Because the claim 1 combination retains Lichtberger’s transverse and vertical cylinder architecture, it would have been obvious to implement claim 4’s sensor integration exactly as taught by Lichtberger for predictable robustness and simplified installation/maintenance of the sensing hardware.
──────────────────────────────── 7. The tamping machine according to claim 1, wherein the lifting-straightening device is arranged between the running gears and in front of the tamping units in a working direction. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 7)
wherein the lifting-straightening device is arranged between the running gears and in front of the tamping units in a working direction Lichtberger teaches tamping machine 1 with tamping unit 4 and lifting and lining unit 2, and further teaches that operation/control is from working cabin 28 arranged in the direction of operation C in front of the tamping unit 4. Lichtberger’s lifting and lining unit 2 is part of the forward working equipment relative to tamping unit 4 and is arranged on the machine between running gears 8.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 7)
Arranging the lifting/lining device 2 between the running gears 8 and ahead of the tamping unit 4 in the working direction C is a known machine architecture in Lichtberger for performing lifting/lining before tamping. The modification from EP3009564 (adding longitudinal-axis pivoting capability) pertains to the mounting/actuation of the tool support, not to relocating the lifting/lining device. Thus, it would have been obvious to maintain Lichtberger’s proven placement (2 relative to 8 and 4) when incorporating the pivot capability for predictable sequencing and machine packaging.
──────────────────────────────── 8. The tamping machine according to claim 2, wherein a rotation angle sensor is operatively associated with the swivel drive and/or a stroke path sensor is operatively associated with a swivel cylinder of the swivel drive. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 8)
Claim 8 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 1-2 as addressed above (including the sensors 20/21/22 on cylinders 3/13/17 per Lichtberger, and the swivel drive implemented consistent with EP3009564’s drive 16 about axis 28 as applied to claim 1).
The additional limitation of claim 8 (rotation angle sensor associated with the swivel drive and/or stroke path sensor associated with a swivel cylinder) is addressed the same as claim 3 above: the swivel actuator (e.g., 16) introduced per EP3009564 would be provided with position feedback in the manner of Lichtberger’s cylinder sensor arrangement (20/21/22).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 8)
Because claim 8 builds on claim 2’s sensor-equipped cylinder positioning system (17/22; 3/20; 13/21), it would have been obvious to likewise provide sensor feedback for the additional cylinder-driven swivel axis (16 about 28) for consistent automation, monitoring, and repeatable positioning, i.e., extending Lichtberger’s established sensing/control approach to the additional swivel degree of freedom.
──────────────────────────────── 9. The tamping machine according to claim 8, wherein the displacement travel sensor of the displacement cylinder, the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting roller, the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting hook, and the stroke path sensor for the swivel cylinder are each integrated in the associated cylinder. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 9)
wherein the displacement travel sensor of the displacement cylinder, the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting roller, the stroke path sensor of the vertical lifting cylinder for the lifting hook, and the stroke path sensor for the swivel cylinder are each integrated in the associated cylinder Lichtberger teaches integrating sensors into the associated cylinders for the transverse and vertical axes (displacement cylinder 17 with travel sensor 22; vertical cylinder 3 with stroke sensor 20; vertical cylinder 13 with stroke sensor 21).
For the swivel cylinder (the actuator implementing the swivel drive, such as EP3009564’s actuator/drive 16), it would have been obvious to similarly integrate a stroke path sensor into that swivel cylinder consistent with Lichtberger’s integrated cylinder-sensor approach (20/21/22), thereby providing an integrated sensor for the swivel axis in addition to the already integrated sensors for transverse and vertical axes.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 9)
Integrating position sensors into the hydraulic cylinders themselves is taught by Lichtberger as a compact and reliable configuration for tool motion control. Once the claim 1/8 combination adds a swivel cylinder (e.g., 16) for pivoting about a longitudinal-parallel axis (28), it would have been obvious to integrate a stroke path sensor into that swivel cylinder for the same predictable reasons taught by Lichtberger for cylinders 3, 13, and 17: reduced external hardware, improved robustness, and direct measurement of actuator position.
REJECTION II – CLAIMS 5, 10-13 Claims 5, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lichtberger (Reference 1) in view of EP3009564 (Reference 2) and further in view of Theurer (Reference 3).
Theurer is applied for its teaching of rail-engaging rollers arranged to grip the rail from opposing sides (i.e., “outside” and “inside” sides of a rail head) using pivoting arms and drive actuation, demonstrating the known desirability and feasibility of configuring a lifting/lining machine so a lifting roller arrangement can grip a rail from either side.
──────────────────────────────── 5. The tamping machine according to claim 1, wherein a transverse displacement path of the transverse guide and a swivel range of the swivel drive are extended so that a rail can be gripped with the lifting roller both from the outside of the track and from the inside of the track. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 5)
wherein a transverse displacement path of the transverse guide and a swivel range of the swivel drive are extended so that a rail can be gripped with the lifting roller both from the outside of the track and from the inside of the track Theurer teaches, on a mobile tamping/leveling/lining machine, providing two track rail engaging rollers 34 for each rail, arranged on opposite sides of the rail such that the rollers 34 engage opposite side faces and undersides of the rail head 40. Theurer further teaches pivoting arms 30 mounted about vertical axes 31, and a hydraulic jack 35 driving the arms 30 to move rollers 34 into force-transmitting engagement with the rail (i.e., establishing a gripping engagement from both sides of the rail head).
In the combined system of Lichtberger + EP3009564, it would have been obvious to dimension/extend (as a matter of design selection) the transverse displacement capability along the transverse guide 16 (driven by cylinder 17) and the swivel range of the longitudinal-axis swivel drive (implemented consistent with EP3009564’s pivot/drive 28/16) so that the lifting roller 6 can be positioned to achieve rail gripping engagement from either side (“outside” and “inside”) depending on which rail/side requires engagement, consistent with Theurer’s teaching that opposite-side rail head engagement by rollers is known and desirable for stable rail gripping.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 5)
Theurer teaches that gripping a rail head with rollers arranged on opposite sides (rollers 34 engaging rail head 40) provides a rigid, force-transmitting rail connection and is achieved by providing sufficient pivoting/actuation range (30/31/35) to move the rollers into and out of engagement. Applying that known concept to the Lichtberger + EP3009564 tool console would have been an obvious predictable modification: selecting/“extending” the transverse travel (16/17) and swivel range (28/16) so that the lifting roller 6 can reach and grip the rail from either side enables use across different track geometries and improves operational flexibility in the same manner shown by Theurer’s opposite-side roller engagement arrangement.
──────────────────────────────── 10. The tamping machine according to claim 5, wherein, the rail can be gripped with a lifting hook having a T-shaped foot. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 10)
wherein the rail can be gripped with a lifting hook having a T-shaped foot Lichtberger teaches providing a lifting hook 7 used to engage the rail (including engagement at the rail base depending on conditions) as part of the lifting/lining unit 2.
A “T-shaped foot” on the lifting hook is an end-geometry/engagement-profile limitation directed to the shape of the rail-engaging foot portion of the hook.
It would have been obvious to shape the rail-engaging foot of Lichtberger’s lifting hook 7 as a T-shaped foot to provide increased bearing area and improved positional stability against the rail profile during lifting operations, i.e., as a predictable design choice for the hook’s rail-contacting interface to enhance secure engagement and reduce localized stress and slip.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 10)
The lifting hook 7 in Lichtberger is expressly intended to grip the rail when roller pincers/rollers are unsuitable (e.g., in switch regions). Selecting a T-shaped foot geometry for the hook’s rail-engaging portion would have been an obvious predictable modification to improve the contact interface with the rail structure (increasing contact area, reducing point loading, and improving resistance to lateral slip/rotation during lifting), without changing the fundamental function of the hook (rail engagement for lifting/lining). This is a routine engineering selection of contact geometry for a rail-engaging hook, yielding predictable improvements in engagement stability.
──────────────────────────────── 11. The tamping machine according to claim 2, wherein a transverse displacement path of the transverse guide and a swivel range of the swivel drive are extended so that a rail can be gripped with the lifting roller—both from the outside of the track and from the inside of the track. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 11)
Claim 11 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 1-2 as addressed above (including Lichtberger’s transverse displacement system 16/17 with sensor 22 and vertical adjustment cylinders 3/13 with sensors 20/21, combined with the longitudinal-axis pivoting concept from EP3009564 via 28/16).
The additional limitation (extended transverse displacement path and extended swivel range for gripping from outside and inside) is addressed the same as claim 5 above using Theurer’s opposite-side roller engagement (rollers 34 engaging rail head 40 via arms 30/axes 31/jacks 35) as teaching the known desirability and feasibility of configuring roller gripping so the rail can be gripped from either side.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 11)
For the same reasons stated for claim 5, it would have been obvious to select/extend the transverse travel range of Lichtberger’s transverse guide arrangement (16/17) and the swivel range of the longitudinal-axis swivel drive (28/16) to enable outside/inside gripping of the rail with a lifting roller 6, consistent with Theurer’s teaching that opposite-side roller engagement is a known way to achieve a stable rail gripping connection (34 engaging rail head 40), yielding predictable operational flexibility and secure gripping.
──────────────────────────────── 12. The tamping machine according to claim 3, wherein a transverse displacement path of the transverse guide and a swivel range of the swivel drive are extended so that a rail can be gripped with the lifting roller—both from the outside of the track and from the inside of the track. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 12)
The additional limitation regarding extended transverse displacement path and swivel range for outside/inside gripping is addressed the same as claim 5 above using Theurer’s opposite-side roller engagement (34/40 with arms 30/axes 31/jacks 35).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 12)
Because claim 12 already presumes a swivel drive and associated sensing (claim 3) in the modified Lichtberger system, selecting/“extending” the motion ranges (transverse displacement and swivel range) to achieve outside/inside gripping would have been an obvious predictable dimensioning choice to realize the known rail gripping objective taught by Theurer (rollers 34 engaging opposite sides of rail head 40), improving adaptability to varied rail positions/geometries with predictable results.
──────────────────────────────── 13. The tamping machine according to claim 4, wherein a transverse displacement path of the transverse guide and a swivel range of the swivel drive are extended so that a rail can be gripped with the lifting roller—both from the outside of the track and from the inside of the track. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 13)
Claim 13 depends from claim 4 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 1-2 and 4 as addressed above (including integrated sensors 20/21/22 in cylinders 3/13/17), combined with EP3009564’s longitudinal-axis pivoting concept (28/16) and further in view of Theurer as applied to claim 5.
The additional limitation regarding extended transverse displacement path and swivel range for outside/inside gripping is addressed the same as claim 5 above using Theurer’s opposite-side roller engagement arrangement (34 engaging rail head 40, actuated by 30/31/35).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 13)
With integrated cylinder sensing (claim 4), the modified system is already configured for robust measurement/control of actuator travel. It would have been obvious to dimension/extend the transverse and swivel motion ranges so that the lifting roller can grip from outside/inside consistent with Theurer’s known opposite-side roller gripping arrangement, with predictable results and without incompatibility with the integrated sensor approach.
REJECTION III – CLAIMS 6, 14-16 Claims 6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lichtberger (Reference 1) in view of EP3009564 (Reference 2) and further in view of Ortelli (Reference 4).
Ortelli is applied for its teaching of an overload protection (force limiting) arrangement for a hydraulic cylinder using an auxiliary hydraulic cylinder and resilient member that yields when a predetermined load/pressure limit is exceeded, which is directly applicable to limiting force in a swivel drive cylinder used on heavy machinery.
──────────────────────────────── 6. The tamping machine according to claim 1, wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 6)
wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection Ortelli teaches an overload protection device for a hydraulic cylinder 1 in which an auxiliary hydraulic cylinder 13 having working chambers 16 and 17 is in constant hydraulic communication (via ducts 18 and 19) with working chambers 2 and 3 of the protected hydraulic cylinder 1, and includes a resilient member (spring 26) that yields when a predetermined load/pressure differential is exceeded, allowing controlled movement to avoid failure under overload.
Accordingly, in the combined Lichtberger + EP3009564 system, it would have been obvious to operatively associate a force limiter/overload protection arrangement with the swivel drive (e.g., the hydraulic cylinder/actuator implementing drive 16) by using Ortelli’s overload protection concept (auxiliary cylinder 13 with chambers 16/17, ducts 18/19, and yielding member 26) to limit the maximum swivel force and prevent damage when the swivel mechanism encounters an obstruction or overload.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 6)
The swivel drive introduced from EP3009564 (drive 16 pivoting about axis 28) would be subjected to impact/overload conditions in practical rail-machine operation (e.g., contact with rail-side structures, fasteners, or discontinuities) because it is a powered actuator controlling a heavy tool support. Ortelli teaches a specific, known hydraulic-cylinder overload protection arrangement that yields when a predetermined load limit is exceeded to avoid actuator failure (cylinder 1 protected using auxiliary cylinder 13, ducts 18/19, yielding member 26). Applying Ortelli’s overload protection to the swivel cylinder is an obvious predictable safety modification to protect the swivel drive and associated structures, yielding the predictable result of overload protection (a “swivel force limiter”) for the swivel drive.
──────────────────────────────── 14. The tamping machine according to claim 2, wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 14)
Claim 14 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 1-2 as addressed above (including Lichtberger’s transverse displacement and vertical adjustment cylinders with sensors 17/22, 3/20, 13/21) and includes the swivel drive of claim 1 as provided via EP3009564 (drive 16 about axis 28), and further includes the swivel force limiter limitation.
The swivel force limiter limitation is addressed the same as claim 6 above using Ortelli’s overload protection for hydraulic cylinder 1 via auxiliary cylinder 13, chambers 16/17, ducts 18/19, and yielding member 26, applied to the swivel drive cylinder (e.g., 16).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 14)
Because claim 14 includes the same swivel drive as claim 1 plus additional sensor-equipped positioning cylinders (claim 2), incorporating overload protection into the swivel drive remains an obvious predictable protective measure as taught by Ortelli, independent of the presence of the additional sensors. The predictable result is a swivel drive protected from overload while maintaining the sensed positioning architecture of claim 2.
──────────────────────────────── 15. The tamping machine according to claim 3, wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 15)
The swivel force limiter limitation is addressed the same as claim 6 above using Ortelli’s overload protection arrangement (cylinder 1 protected by auxiliary cylinder 13, ducts 18/19, chambers 16/17, yielding spring 26) applied to the swivel cylinder (e.g., drive 16 about axis 28).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 15)
Claim 15 already seeks to monitor swivel position (claim 3). Adding a force limiter/overload protection to the same swivel actuator is an obvious complementary safety enhancement: Ortelli teaches protecting a hydraulic cylinder against overload while maintaining controllable motion. The predictable result is a swivel drive that can be position-controlled (including via sensors) but will yield in a controlled manner under overload to prevent damage.
──────────────────────────────── 16. The tamping machine according to claim 4, wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 16)
The swivel force limiter limitation is addressed the same as claim 6 above using Ortelli’s overload protection arrangement (auxiliary cylinder 13 with chambers 16/17, ducts 18/19, yielding member 26) applied to the swivel cylinder (e.g., 16 about 28).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 16)
Integrating sensors into the transverse and vertical cylinders (claim 4) does not address overload risks of the swivel actuator introduced into the system. Ortelli provides a known cylinder overload protection arrangement that yields beyond a predetermined load limit. It would have been obvious to apply Ortelli’s force-limiting concept to the swivel cylinder to protect the swivel drive from overload, yielding predictable overload protection while preserving the integrated sensor configuration for the other axes.
REJECTION IV – CLAIM 17 Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lichtberger (Reference 1) in view of EP3009564 (Reference 2) and further in view of Theurer (Reference 3) and Ortelli (Reference 4).
Claim 17 incorporates both (i) the “outside/inside” rail gripping range concept (claim 5) supported by Theurer, and (ii) the swivel force limiter concept (claim 6) supported by Ortelli, on top of the base combination of Lichtberger + EP3009564.
──────────────────────────────── 17. The tamping machine according to claim 5, wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection. ────────────────────────────────
ANALYSIS (CLAIM 17)
Claim 17 depends from claim 5 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 1 and 5 as addressed above for Lichtberger in view of EP3009564 and further in view of Theurer (including transverse displacement along guide 16 by cylinder 17, longitudinal-axis pivoting by drive 16 about axis 28 as applied to the tool console, and selecting/extending motion ranges to enable outside/inside rail gripping consistent with Theurer’s opposite-side roller engagement 34 with rail head 40 via arms 30/axes 31/jacks 35).
wherein a swivel force limiter is operatively associated with the swivel drive so as to provide overload protection As explained for claim 6 above, Ortelli teaches providing overload protection (force limiting) for a hydraulic cylinder 1 using an auxiliary cylinder 13 with chambers 16/17 in constant hydraulic communication via ducts 18/19 and a resilient member 26 that yields above a predetermined load limit. This teaching is applied to the swivel cylinder implementing the swivel drive (e.g., drive 16 used for pivoting about axis 28) so that the swivel drive includes a force limiter/overload protection arrangement.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 17)
For the same reasons stated for claim 5, it would have been obvious to configure/extend the motion ranges to enable gripping from outside/inside consistent with Theurer’s rail gripping roller arrangement. Additionally, for the same reasons stated for claim 6, it would have been obvious to incorporate Ortelli’s overload protection arrangement into the swivel actuator to protect the swivel mechanism from overload forces encountered during operation. Combining these known teachings yields predictable results: a rail gripping arrangement with expanded engagement capability (outside/inside) and a swivel drive protected by a force limiter to reduce damage risk during overload conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The §103 rejections are maintained because the claim 1 amendment does not change the dispositive structural requirements in a manner that avoids the applied combination, and Applicant’s arguments do not address the actual basis of the combination as set forth in the rejection.
CLAIM 1 – APPLICANT’S ARGUMENT REGARDING “BOTH SUPPORTED TOGETHER ON A CONSOLE THAT CAN BE PIVOTED”
Applicant asserts that the applied references allegedly fail to suggest “both the lifting roller and the lifting hook are both supported on a console that is movable both transversely to a longitudinal axis and pivotally about the longitudinal axis,” and further argues that:
Lichtberger US includes a vertically adjustable lifting hook (7) and lifting roller (6) but allegedly does not have both together on a console pivotable about a longitudinal axis; and
Lichtberger EP includes a lifting roller (24) on a structure pivoting about longitudinal axis (28) but allegedly does not have the lifting hook (25) supported on that same pivoting structure.
These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
THE REJECTION DOES NOT RELY ON LICHTBERGER EP FOR THE “BOTH TOOLS ON THE SAME CONSOLE” FEATURE
The rejection relies on Lichtberger US for the combined, tool-carrying console arrangement (lifting roller and lifting hook supported together on a common console that is laterally/transversely positioned by an adjusting drive along a transverse guide). Applicant does not persuasively rebut that Lichtberger US provides the common tool support that carries both lifting tools.
The rejection relies on Lichtberger EP for the additional teaching of mounting a rail-engaging tool support so that it is pivotally movable about an axis parallel to the tamping machine longitudinal axis by a driven swivel arrangement. In other words, Lichtberger EP is applied for the pivoting mounting/drive concept, not for the “both tools on the same console” concept.
Thus, Applicant’s point that Lichtberger EP shows the hook (25) not on the pivoting structure does not address the combination actually applied, because the pivoting teaching from Lichtberger EP is used to modify the tool console structure taught by Lichtberger US.
MODIFICATION OF LICHTBERGER US USING LICHTBERGER EP’S PIVOTING TEACHING WOULD RESULT IN A PIVOTING CONSOLE THAT (BY DEFINITION) CARRIES BOTH THE LIFTING ROLLER AND THE LIFTING HOOK
Claim 1 requires, as amended, that:
the lifting roller and lifting hook are supported on a console;
the console is guided in movement by an adjusting drive transversely along a transverse guide; and
the console is mounted so as to be moved pivotally about a pivot axis parallel to the longitudinal axis by a swivel drive.
Under the applied rationale, Lichtberger US provides the console that supports both tools (lifting roller and lifting hook) and provides the transverse guiding/adjusting drive arrangement. Lichtberger EP provides the teaching to mount such a rail-tool support so it can pivot about a longitudinal-parallel axis using a swivel drive (actuator).
When the Lichtberger EP pivoting mounting/drive is applied to the Lichtberger US tool console, the result is that the console itself is pivotally movable about the longitudinal-parallel axis. Since both tools are supported on that console in Lichtberger US, both tools necessarily pivot with the console. No additional “separate suggestion” to pivot the hook is required, because the hook is not being separately pivoted; rather, it is carried by the pivoted console.
Applicant’s argument effectively treats the rejection as if it required that Lichtberger EP already disclose both roller and hook on the same pivoting structure. That is not the requirement for an obviousness combination, and it is not the manner in which the rejection is applied. The applied modification uses Lichtberger EP’s pivoting teaching to change the mounting of Lichtberger US’s console, which already supports both tools.
THE REFERENCES ARE IN THE SAME FIELD AND ADDRESS THE SAME TYPE OF MECHANICAL POSITIONING PROBLEMS; THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS A PREDICTABLE USE OF KNOWN POSITIONING DEGREES OF FREEDOM
Applicant argues that the claimed structure provides advantages, and cites the application’s discussion of improved operation. However, the asserted advantages do not overcome obviousness because:
The claim does not recite the operational details Applicant emphasizes (e.g., specific “forced open,” “floated,” or “pressed on with low force” control modes). The claim requires a pivotable console about a longitudinal-parallel axis driven by a swivel drive; that mechanical degree of freedom is precisely the type of predictable modification taught by Lichtberger EP’s pivoting tool support.
The applied combination is a straightforward integration of known positioning features on analogous tamping/lifting equipment: Lichtberger US already has the transverse guide/adjusting drive and the vertically adjustable lifting tools on a common console; Lichtberger EP teaches that providing an additional pivoting degree of freedom about a longitudinal-parallel axis by a swivel drive is used for controlling tool orientation/clearance relative to the track machine longitudinal direction.
Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on alleged advantages does not persuasively distinguish over the structural teachings and the predictable result of adding the known pivoting capability to the already-known common tool console of Lichtberger US.
For at least the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the §103 rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 2-9 AND 11-17 – DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Applicant asserts generally that claims 2-17 “therefore distinguish with claim 1 over the prior art.” This general statement is not persuasive because it does not separately address the additional limitations of each dependent claim or explain why those added limitations are not taught or would not have been obvious in view of the applied references for those claims.
Additionally, Applicant did not present arguments directed to the specific dependent-claim features as previously applied (e.g., sensor arrangements, integrated sensors, extended travel/range for inside/outside gripping, overload protection/force limiting). Therefore, the prior rejections of the dependent claims are maintained on the same bases as set forth in the Office Action, as modified only to account for Applicant’s amendments to claims 3, 8 and 10.
With respect to the “or” amendments in claims 3 and 8, the prior rationale remains applicable because the applied combination teaches and/or renders obvious at least one of the recited alternatives (e.g., providing a stroke path sensor on the swivel cylinder and/or an angle sensor associated with the swivel drive) as a predictable extension of the sensor-equipped actuator control already used in the art for cylinder-driven positioning on tamping/lifting equipment.
The 103 rejections are maintained because Applicant’s arguments do not address the applied combination’s key point: Lichtberger US supplies the common console supporting both lifting tools and the transverse positioning structure, and Lichtberger EP supplies the pivot-about-longitudinal-axis mounting/drive teaching that would have been applied to that console, resulting in the claimed pivotable console carrying both tools.
Applicant is advised to:
If Applicant seeks to overcome the 103 rejection of claim 1, amend claim 1 to include additional structural limitations that are not taught or suggested by the applied combination (for example, a specific interrelationship between the swivel drive and the transverse guide/adjusting drive that materially changes the kinematics beyond merely adding a known pivoting degree of freedom to a known laterally displaceable tool console), supported by the original disclosure.
If Applicant believes the Examiner’s understanding of the tool console structure in Lichtberger US or the pivoting teaching in Lichtberger EP is incorrect, Applicant should specifically identify the particular structure(s) relied upon and explain why the cited console and pivoting teachings do not correspond to the amended claim language.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights