Ing 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.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
ISSUE 1: AMBIGUOUS MODIFIER IN CLAIM 1 (“ARRANGED BETWEEN RUNNING GEARS CONFIGURED TO LIFT AND STRAIGHTEN …”)
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a lifting-straightening device arranged between running gears configured to lift and straighten tracks and railroad switches.” This phrase is ambiguous because it is unclear whether:
the “running gears” are “configured to lift and straighten tracks and railroad switches,” or
the “lifting-straightening device” is “configured to lift and straighten tracks and railroad switches.”
This ambiguity renders the scope of claim 1 unclear because the functional configuration (“configured to lift and straighten…”) materially affects which structure is required by the claim.
ISSUE 2: “AND/OR” RENDERS SENSOR REQUIREMENTS UNCLEAR (CLAIMS 3 AND 8)
Claims 3 and 8 each recite “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.”
The use of “and/or” is indefinite because it does not distinctly set forth the required combination(s) of sensors. While the phrase may be intended to encompass multiple alternatives (rotation angle sensor only; stroke path sensor only; or both), the claim language does not clearly delineate the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter in a manner that distinctly identifies which sensor arrangement(s) are required for infringement analysis. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
ISSUE 3: LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR “A LIFTING HOOK HAVING A T-SHAPED FOOT”
Claim 10 recites, “the rail can be gripped with a lifting hook having a T-shaped foot.”
The specification describes a lifting hook (e.g., lifting hook 7) that can grip at the rail head and/or rail foot (see, e.g., [0012], [0032], [0036]) and generally describes vertical adjustment and engagement positions. However, the specification as provided does not describe a lifting hook “having a T-shaped foot,” nor does it depict or characterize the foot geometry of the lifting hook as “T-shaped.” In the absence of an express or inherently supported disclosure of the “T-shaped foot,” the originally-filed specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of that specific structural feature at the time of filing.
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.
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