Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 11772689 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US 11772689 B1 teaches: A locked-axle rail wheel spring compression system, comprising: a platform, including: a base plate having a top side and a bottom side, with one or more bolt holes disposed therethrough; an extender having a bolt channel, coupled to the top side of the base plate, a bolt disposed through the bolt hole from the bottom side of the base plate and through the bolt channel, and an actuator coupled to the top side of the base plate (Claim 1); and a gauge box having a gauge coupled to the actuator to monitor and apply fluid to the actuator (Claims 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, US 11772689 B1 teaches: at least one actuator hole disposed through the base plate and configured to receive an actuator screw or stud (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, US 11772689 B1 teaches: wherein the actuator is disposed between the base plate and a vehicle structure (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, US 11772689 B1 teaches: the bolt couples the base plate and the extender to a vehicle structure (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, US 11772689 B1 teaches: the actuator extends a ram to exert a force on a journal box (Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, US 11772689 B1 teaches: the force compresses a coil spring disposed proximate the journal box (Claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, US 11772689 B1 teaches: a pump operably coupled to the gauge box (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, US 11772689 B1 teaches: A locked-axle spring compression system, comprising: a vehicle frame (Claim 9) ; a locked-axle spring compression system having a base plate, an extender (Claim 9), and an actuator coupled to the vehicle frame proximate a locked-axle rail wheel (Claim 11); and a gauge box having a gauge coupled to the actuator to monitor and apply fluid to the actuator (Claims 15-16).
Regarding claim 12, US 11772689 B1 teaches: at least one actuator hole disposed through the base plate and configured to receive an actuator screw or stud (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, US 11772689 B1 teaches: the actuator is disposed between the base plate and the vehicle frame (Claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, US 11772689 B1 teaches: a bolt coupled to the base plate and the extender to the vehicle frame (Claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, US 11772689 B1 teaches: the actuator extends a ram to exert a force on a train structure (Claim 13).
Regarding claim 16, US 11772689 B1 teaches: the force compresses a coil spring disposed proximate the train structure (Claim 14).
Regarding claim 19, US 11772689 B1 teaches: a pump operably coupled to the gauge box (Claim 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a bolt coupled to the base plate and the extender to the vehicle frame”. It is unclear how a bolt can be coupled to the base plate, the extender, and the vehicle frame all at the same time. For examination purposes, this limitation has been construed as “a bolt couples the base plate and the extender to the vehicle frame”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaev et al. (RU 2496627 C1, provided with translation), in view of Huang et al. (CN 207728506 U, provided with translation).
Regarding claim 1, Isaev teaches (Fig. 1-2): A locked-axle rail wheel spring compression system (Fig. 1), comprising: a platform (Fig. 2), including: a base plate (platform 14) having a top side and a bottom side (Fig. 2), with one or more bolt holes disposed therethrough (Fig. 2 shows the extenders 17 having bolt channels connected to a top side of base plate 14, with bolts extending through the bolt holes from the bottom side of base plate 14 and through the bolt channels of extenders 17); an extender (linear guides 17) having a bolt channel, coupled to the top side of the base plate (14)(Fig. 2), a bolt disposed through the bolt hole from the bottom side of the base plate (14) and through the bolt channel (Fig. 2), and an actuator (pneumatic cylinder 15) coupled to the top side of the base plate (14)(Fig. 2)
Isaev does not explicitly teach: a gauge box having a gauge coupled to the actuator to monitor and apply fluid to the actuator.
However, Huang teaches (Fig. 1 and 5): a pump (hand pump 10) and a gauge box (Fig. 5) having a gauge (electronic pressure gauge 1300) coupled to a hose (4000) to monitor and apply fluid (air) to an inflatable object (para. 0038 and 0041).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Isaev to include a gauge box having a gauge in connection with a pump and a hose for monitoring and applying fluid to the actuator, as disclosed by Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow users to monitor the air pressure provided to the pneumatic actuator in real time, allowing the actuating force to be controlled and efficiently identify leakages.
Regarding claim 3, Isaev further teaches (Fig. 1-2): the actuator (15) is disposed between the base plate (14) and a vehicle structure (wheel pair 10 of the vehicle)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Isaev and Huang further teaches through Huang: the gauge box (Huang, Figs. 4-5) indicates the pressure exerted or maintained by the actuator (by use of an air pressure sensor 1310 and a display 1320; Huang, para. 0048).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Isaev and Huang further teaches through Huang: a pump (hand pump 10) operably coupled to the gauge box (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Isaev and Huang further teaches through Huang: a hose (hose 4000) configured to couple the gauge box to an external device (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaev et al. (RU 2496627 C1, provided with translation), in view of Huang et al. (CN 207728506 U, provided with translation) and Smith et al. (US 20150165853 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Isaev does not explicitly teach at least one actuator hole disposed through the base plate and configured to receive an actuator screw or stud.
However, Smith teaches an alternate flexible spring structure 200, wherein (Fig. 3): a flexible spring structure is secured to base plate (SC2) via screw/stud (272) extending through a hole in the base plate.
In view of Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the actuator of the RU reference to include screw/stud extending through a base plate hole, in a manner similar to that taught by Smith, for performing the expected function of securing the actuator to the base plate to prevent undesired movements. The structure of the RU reference, as modified, is considered to include the combination of features recited in instant claim 2.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaev et al. (RU 2496627 C1, provided with translation), in view of Huang et al. (CN 207728506 U, provided with translation) and Ahuja et al. (WO 2012027520 A1, provided).
Regarding claim 5, Isaev further teaches (Fig. 1-2): the actuator (15) extends a ram (top flat part of actuator 15) to exert a force on a vehicle axle (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the force is exerted on a journal box.
However, Ahuja teaches an alternate axle spring compression system, wherein (Fig. 5): a journal box (134) is provided having an opening (136) for receiving an axle (para. 0036).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Isaev to include provide a journal box for the vehicle axle, as disclosed by Ahuja, such that the actuator of Isaev exerts a force on the journal box, with a reasonable expectation of success because a journal box is a well-known component in a railway vehicle for providing enhanced alignment and stability through operation.
Regarding claim 6, Isaev does not explicitly teach that the force compresses a coil spring disposed proximate the journal box.
However, Ahuja further teaches (Fig. 3-5): coil springs (132) disposed on the journal box (134) being adjusted by an actuator (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Isaev to include coil springs with the journal box, as disclosed by Ahuja, with a reasonable expectation of success because coil springs are well-known components in a railway vehicle for providing shock absorption and weight distribution for proper alignment and stability.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja et al. (WO 2012027520 A1, provided), in view of Huang et al. (CN 207728506 U, provided with translation).
Regarding claim 11, Ahuja teaches (Fig. 1-6): A locked-axle spring compression system (Fig. 5), comprising: a vehicle frame (truck frame 160); a locked-axle spring compression system having a base plate (base of journal box 134), an extender (springs 132), and an actuator (pneumatic cylinders 180) coupled to the vehicle frame (160) proximate a locked-axle rail wheel (through lever 174 and cam 172; para. 0050-0051; Fig. 5-6).
Ahuja does not explicitly teach: a gauge box having a gauge coupled to the actuator to monitor and apply fluid to the actuator.
However, Huang teaches (Fig. 1 and 5): a pump (hand pump 10) and a gauge box (Fig. 5) having a gauge (electronic pressure gauge 1300) coupled to a hose (4000) to monitor and apply fluid (air) to an inflatable object (para. 0038 and 0041).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Ahuja to include a gauge box having a gauge in connection with a pump and a hose for monitoring and applying fluid to the actuator, as disclosed by Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow users to monitor the air pressure provided to the pneumatic actuator in real time, allowing the actuating force to be controlled and efficiently identify leakages.
Regarding claim 13, Ahuja further teaches (Fig. 1-6): the actuator (180) is disposed between the base plate (134) and the vehicle frame (160)(Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Ahuja further teaches (Fig. 3 and 5-6): a bolt (coupling end 140) couples the base plate (134) and the extender (132) to the vehicle frame (160)(Figs. 3 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 15, Ahuja further teaches (Fig. 5-6): the actuator (180) extends a ram (lever 174 and cam 172) to exert a force on a train structure (to cause a linear movement of the spring seat 138; para. 0050; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, Ahuja further teaches (Fig. 5-6): the force compresses a coil spring (132) disposed proximate the train structure (para. 0050, Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ahuja and Huang further teaches through Huang: the gauge box (Huang, Figs. 4-5) indicates the pressure exerted or maintained by the actuator (by use of an air pressure sensor 1310 and a display 1320; Huang, para. 0048).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ahuja and Huang further teaches through Huang: a pump (hand pump 10) operably coupled to the gauge box (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ahuja and Huang further teaches through Huang: a hose (hose 4000) configured to couple the gauge box to an external device (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and if all 112b rejections and Double Patenting Rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to teach the bolt couples the base plate and the extender to a vehicle structure. While Isaev teaches (Fig. 1-2): a base plate (platform 14) having a top side and a bottom side (Fig. 2), with one or more bolt holes disposed therethrough (Fig. 2 shows the extenders 17 having bolt channels connected to a top side of base plate 14, with bolts extending through the bolt holes from the bottom side of base plate 14 and through the bolt channels of extenders 17), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Isaev such that the bolt couples the base plate and the extender to a vehicle structure. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the prior art fails to teach that the gauge box includes one or more magnets to adhere the gauge box to a train. While the secondary reference Huang teaches (Fig. 1 and 5): a pump (hand pump 10) and a gauge box (Fig. 5) having a gauge (electronic pressure gauge 1300) coupled to a hose (4000) to monitor and apply fluid (air) to an inflatable object (para. 0038 and 0041), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the secondary reference Huang such that the gauge box includes one or more magnets to adhere the gauge box to a train. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach at least one actuator hole disposed through the base plate and configured to receive an actuator screw or stud. While Ahuja teaches (Fig. 1-6): A locked-axle spring compression system (Fig. 5), comprising: a base plate (base of journal box 134), an extender (springs 132), and an actuator (pneumatic cylinders 180) coupled to the vehicle frame (160) proximate a locked-axle rail wheel (through lever 174 and cam 172; para. 0050-0051; Fig. 5-6), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Ahuja such that an actuator screw or stud is inserted into at least one actuator hole through the base plate. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that Ahuja’s actuator (pneumatic cylinders 180) is for pivoting a lever (174), and not directly fixed to the base plate (134) for actuation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-0888245-A, US-4502391-A, US-5018453-A, US-5203264-A, US-8171829-B2, US-8468952-B2, US-10710614-B2, US-10766508-B2, US-11772689-B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615