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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6 and 8 were amended to remove “characterized in that”, while still retaining “in that” later in the claim instead of being amended to recite “wherein”. Please amend “in that” to “wherein” for consistency.
Within claim 14, “(46)” should be “(56)”.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, 14 and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11 the phrase "in particular" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the contact region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claims 3, 7, 13 and 15.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the central region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claim 8.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the geometry" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the indefinite pronoun “them” within line 7. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the bearing elements (58,60) of the eccentric element (12) are surrounded in regions…” after previously claiming within claim 4, that the bearing elements are within the receptacle not the eccentric element. Examiner recommends establishing that the eccentric element cooperates with the bearing elements within the receptacle within claim 4.
Claim 11 recites the indefinite pronoun “its” within line 3. Please replace with the noun to which it refers. This rejection likewise applies to claim 12.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the legs" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the rail side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the lower support plane", “the ends” and “the legs” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the possessive pronoun “their”. Please replace with the nouns to which it refers.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 10 are likewise rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun et al. (KR 200453894 Y1).
Regarding claim 14: Chun discloses an arrangement for holding down a rail (Fig.3) having a rail foot (52; Fig.3), such as a stock rail, a base, such as a slide chair plate, tongue roller plate or wheel guide plate, a plate element (20; Fig.2), such as a slide chair or counter bearing, extending from the base (Fig.3), a spring element (25; Fig.3) and a first and a second abutment for tensioning the spring element (Fig.30, the first abutment being a section of the plate element or extending therefrom (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0024], lines 6-7), which extends in the region remote from the rail foot (27; Fig.3), and the second abutment is an eccentric element which preferably extends in the longitudinal direction of the rail and is rotatably arranged in a receptacle located between the rail foot and the first abutment (26; Fig.3), the spring element being designed to be supported on the rail foot (left end of 25; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 15: Chun further discloses the arrangement of claim 14, wherein the eccentric element is a rod-shaped element, such as a shaft (26; Fig.5), which has an eccentric geometry in cross-section in the contact region with the spring element (26a,26b; Fig.5) in such a way that the spring element is untensioned in a first position of the eccentric element and tensioned in a second position in such a way that both the rail foot and the plate element are held down (Para.[0034]).
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Dietze et al. (EP 1508642 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Chun teaches an arrangement for holding down a rail (Fig.3) having a rail foot (52; Fig.3), such as a stock rail, comprising a base (10; Fig.2) such as a slide chair plate, tongue roller plate or wheel guide plate, a plate element (20; Fig.2) such as a slide chair or counter bearing, a spring element (25; Fig.3), and a first and a second abutment for tensioning the spring element (Fig.3), wherein the first abutment is a section of the plate element or extends therefrom (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0024], lines 6-7), extending in the region remote from the rail foot (27; Fig.3), in that the second abutment is an eccentric element (26; Fig.3), which extends preferably in the longitudinal direction of the rail and is rotatably arranged in a receptacle arranged between the rail foot and the first abutment and extending from the base (apparent from Fig.3), and in that the spring element is designed to be supported on the rail foot (left end of 25; Fig.3). Chun does not teach the slide plate being attachable and the spring element also holding the plate element on the base.
However, Dietze teaches a plate element that is detachably arranged on the base (26; Fig.1) and a spring element holding the plate element on the base (Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Chun to include the slide plate being removable to allow for proper maintenance and slide plate replacement due to component wear with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the eccentric element is a rod-shaped element, such as a shaft (26; Fig.5), which has an eccentric geometry in cross-section in the contact region with the spring element (26a,26b; Fig.5) in such a way that the spring element is untensioned in a first position of the eccentric element and tensioned in a second position in such a way that the rail foot is held down (Fig.1). Chun does not teach that the spring element also holds down the plate element.
However, Dietze teaches a plate element that is detachably arranged on the base (26; Fig.1) and a spring element holding the plate element on the base (Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Chun to include the slide plate being removable to allow for proper maintenance and slide plate replacement due to component wear with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the eccentric element in the contact region has a geometry of a circular segment or of a circular segmental shape in section (Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 4: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the receptacle has two bearing elements (Para.[0024], lines 4-5 and shown within Fig.7) which extend in sections into recesses in the plate element (Fig.7).
Regarding claim 5: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the spring element extends in the central region of the plate element and in the longitudinal direction thereof (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 6: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the spring element rests with a geometrically adapted end region on the first abutment in such a way that a longitudinal displacement of the spring element in the tensioned state is prevented (27; Fig.2 and 3). Chun does not teach wherein the first abutment has the geometry of a cylinder section.
However, Dietz teaches wherein the first abutment has the geometry of a cylinder section (26; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Chun with the cylinder section shape of the spring element as in Dietz to provide a stable first abutment to prevent longitudinal displacement when the spring element is fully tensioned between the rail foot and the first abutment with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional region or moment of resistance of the spring element in the contact region to the eccentric element is larger than in the contact region both with the rail foot and with the first abutment (apparent from Fig.3).
Regarding claim 8: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plate element for receiving the spring element (Fig.2) has a longitudinal recess which preferably starts from the first abutment and extends in the longitudinal direction of the plate element (recess opening at top end of 20; Fig.2) and is bounded by side walls, and in that the side walls have the eccentric element passing through them (Fig. 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 9: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 4, wherein the bearing elements of the eccentric element are surrounded in regions by the side walls (apparent from Fig.3).
Regarding claim 11: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the eccentric element is designed, at least in one of its ends, as an actuating head, such as a polygonal head, in particular a square head, which is located within an outer side of one of the legs (26"; Fig.5).
Regarding claim 12: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plate element extends, with its end region running on the rail side, above the rail foot and at a distance therefrom (left end of plate element; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 13: Chun further teaches the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the contact region between the eccentric element and the spring element extends closer to the lower support plane of the base than the ends of the legs of the spring element facing away from the base with their respective smallest distance from the lower support plane of the base (Fig.3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claim 10.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach wherein the bearing are lateral legs of the receptacle, which has a U-shape in section and the transverse leg of which extends above the eccentric element. Although Dietze teaches the use of a receptacle for the spring element in a U-shape. It would require an improper amount of hindsight to combine this component with the arrangement of Chun with the receptacle shaped and containing the bearing elements as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615