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 1-8 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. ATA174/2022, filed on 09/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/07/2023, 10/18/2023, and 03/20/2024 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin et al. (US 10597826 B2, known hereinafter as Augustin ‘826), in view of Augustin (US 12089761 B2, known hereinafter as Augustin ‘761).
Regarding claim 1, Augustin ‘826 teaches (Fig. 1): An under sleeper pad (sleeper pad 1) for fastening to an outer surface facing a ballast bed (ballast bed 2) of a railroad sleeper (sleeper 4)(Fig. 1), the under sleeper pad (1) comprising: an elastomer layer (damping layer 5; Claims 2-3) , but does not explicitly teach that the elastomer layer has a density in a range of 250 kg/m3 to 350 kg/m3.
However, Augustin ‘761 teaches an alternate sleeper pad (1), wherein (Fig. 1): an elastomer layer (5) has a density in a range of 250 kg/m3 to 350 kg/m3 (in the range of 200 kg/m3 to 1000 kg/m3; col. 3, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Augustin ‘826 to provide an elastomer layer with a density in a range of 250 kg/m3 to 350 kg/m3, as disclosed by Augustin ‘761, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure the elastomer pad has adequate load-bearing capacity for supporting the weight of trains while absorbing vibrations and shocks. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Augustin ‘826 further teaches (Fig. 1): wherein the elastomer layer (5) comprises a polyurethane (Claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, Augustin ‘826 further teaches (Fig. 1): a fastening layer (fiber layer 15) for fastening to the railroad sleeper (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 18-20).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin et al. (US 10597826 B2, known hereinafter as Augustin ‘826), in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2012080406 A1, provided).
Regarding claim 4, Augustin ‘826 does not explicitly teach that the elastomer layer has a tear resistance of 2.2 N/mm2 to 4.0 N/mm2.
However, Zhang teaches an alternate elastomer railway track bed, wherein (Fig. 1): the elastomer layer has a tensile strength of between 0.1 – 60 MPa (correlating to 0.1 N/mm2 – 60 N/mm2)(para. 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastomer layer with a tear resistance of 2.2 N/mm2 to 4.0 N/mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Providing an elastomer layer with high resistance to tearing and breaking ensures the long-term durability and structural integrity of railway track systems. The ability of elastomeric materials to resist tearing is critical for maintaining their functional role as a buffer between rigid track components.
Regarding claim 5, Augustin ‘826 does not explicitly teach that the elastomer layer has an elongation at break of 50% to 200%.
However, Zhang further teaches an alternate elastomer railway track bed, wherein (Fig. 1): the elastomer layer has an elongation at break of 50% to 200% (30-750%; para. 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastomer layer with an elongation at break of 50% to 200%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Providing an elastomer layer with high elongation at break offers superior flexibility, impact resistance, and durability, allowing it to safely deform under significant stress and dynamic loading without catastrophic failure.
Regarding claim 7, Augustin ‘826 does not explicitly teach that the elastomer layer has a Shore A hardness of 50 to 80.
However, Zhang teaches an alternate elastomer railway track bed, wherein (Fig. 1): the elastomer layer has a Shore A hardness of 50 to 80 (10-80 Shore A; para. 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastomer layer with a Shore A hardness of 50 to 80, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Providing an elastomer layer with a Shore A hardness of 50 to 80 would ensure the sleeper pad has adequate shock absorption and structural durability for improving ride quality and protection of the sleeper.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin et al. (US 10597826 B2, known hereinafter as Augustin ‘826), in view of Sato et al. (US 4652495 A).
Regarding claim 6, Augustin ‘826 does not explicitly teach that the elastomer layer has a compression set of 15% to 24%.
However, Sato teaches an alternate elastomer railway tie coating layer (2), wherein (Fig. 1): the property rating for a resilient-coating material for railway ties is a permanent compression set of 15% or less (col. 2, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastomer layer with a compression set of 15% to 24%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Providing an elastomer layer with 15% to 24% compression set would allow the pad to balance permanent deformation resistance with energy absorption. This would ensure the pad does not have too low a compression set to fail to absorb sufficient impact, or too high a compression set to lose its vibration-damping capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to teach the test steps of:
a) inserting the test specimen carrier of concrete with the under sleeper pad fastened thereto in a test apparatus, the test apparatus comprising a geometric test plate fastened to a pressure punch of a press, the geometric test plate comprising a pressing surface with elevations and depressions and the pressing surface of the geometric test plate being brought into contact with a surface of the under sleeper pad that faces away from the test specimen carrier,
b) measuring a starting thickness d0 of the under sleeper pad at a measurement location in a region of a maximum one of the elevations of the geometric test plate,
c) pressing the pressing surface of the test plate into the under sleeper pad by the pressure punch for five hundred thousand pressing cycles following one another directly in succession, the test plate being pressed into the under sleeper pad with a pressure exhibiting a sinusoidal curve between 0.01 N/mm2 and 0.15 N/mm2 and at a cycle frequency of 15 Hz in each of said pressing cycles,
d) measuring a first modified thickness d1 of the under sleeper pad at the measurement location upon the five hundred thousandth pressing cycle, the under sleeper pad being in a maximally compressed state, which results during the five hundred thousandth pressing cycle, when the first modified thickness d1 is being measured,
e) lifting the test plate completely off of the under sleeper pad with a constant lifting- off speed of 1 mm/s starting directly after the first modified thickness d1 has been measured,
f) measuring a second modified thickness d2 of the under sleeper pad at the measurement location directly after a period of time of 60 s has elapsed, the period of time starting directly at an end of the measurement of the first modified thickness d1, and
g) calculating the relative residual deformation rv according to the formula rv=(d0- d2)/(d0-d1).
While Augustin ‘826 further teaches (Fig. 1 and 3-9): the under sleeper pad (1) comprising: an elastomer layer (damping layer 5; Claims 2-3); and a residual deformation test (with results shown in Fig. 9) comprising a test body (6) fastened thereto in a test apparatus (Fig. 5), the test apparatus comprising a geometric test plate (contour plate 8) fastened to a pressure punch of a press (pressing ram 17)(Fig. 5), the geometric test plate (8) comprising a pressing surface with elevations and depressions (Fig. 7-8) and the pressing surface of the geometric test plate being brought into contact with a surface of the under sleeper pad (6) between a flat steel plate (13) and a contour plate (8)(Fig. 5); and the steps of measuring an initial thickness (D0) of the test body, pressing the test body, measuring a first modified thickness (D20), and calculating a residual deformation using the measured thicknesses (col. 1, line 50 – col. 2, line 12), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Augustin ‘826 to insert the test specimen into carrier of concrete, and perform the pressing operation with five hundred thousand pressing cycles following one another directly in succession, the test plate being pressed into the under sleeper pad with a pressure exhibiting a sinusoidal curve between 0.01 N/mm2 and 0.15 N/mm2 and at a cycle frequency of 15 Hz in each of said pressing cycles. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of an under sleeper pad pressing test method: US-20100320281-A1, FR-2511405-A1, EP-2531652-B1, AU-2015348291-A1, JP-6431463-B2.
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