DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/515,566 filed on November 21st, 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of legal phraseology. Please remove “Embodiments herein disclose” from the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
At paragraph [0003] of the specification, Applicant references “U.S. Pat. No. 5,338,525”, which discloses a MFI-type zeolite. Examiner believes this was a typographical error and Applicant intended to reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,388,525, which discloses a railway car retarder. Please review paragraph [0003] of the specification and amend if necessary. U.S. Pat. No. 5,388,525 has been cited with this Office Action.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 5 (lines 2-4), please change the recitation of “a first end of the structural top plate is coupled to top of the first module base plate and a second end of the structural top plate is coupled to top of the second module base plate” to - - a first end of the structural top plate is coupled to a top of the first module base plate and a second end of the structural top plate is coupled to a top of the second module base plate - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5 (lines 5-7), please change the recitation of “a first end of the structural bottom plate is coupled to bottom of the first module base plate, and a second end of the structural bottom plate is coupled to bottom of the second module base plate” to - - a first end of the structural bottom plate is coupled to a bottom of the first module base plate, and a second end of the structural bottom plate is coupled to a bottom of the second module base plate - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “wherein a first position arm plate and a second position arm plate” to - - wherein [[a]] the first position arm plate and [[a]] the second position arm plate - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 5-6), please change the recitation of “the first cam bearing is secured opposite to an inner surface of the first position arm plate” to - - the first cam bearing is secured opposite to [[an]] the inner surface of the first position arm plate - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 10 (lines 2-3).
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 11-12), please change the recitation of “the second cam bearing is secured opposite to an inner surface of the second position arm plate” to - - the second cam bearing is secured opposite to [[an]] the inner surface of the second position arm plate - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 10 (lines 8-9).
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (last clause), in the recitation of “separate the first position arm plate from the first spring base plate, and the second position arm plate from the second spring base plate to allow insertion of a shim” it is unclear how many shims Applicant intends to recite. Applicant could recite “separate the first position arm plate from the first spring base plate, and the second position arm plate from the second spring base plate to allow insertion of a respective shim” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein when the retarder module is in a closed position” the difference between the position recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “closed position” recited in claim 6 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein when the retarder module is in [[a]] the closed position” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12, in the recitation of “wherein the cam absorbs spring shock transmitted through the first brake shoe base plate and the second brake shoe base plate without damaging components of the gear cam assembly” the metes and bounds of “without damaging” is unclear. It is also unclear what components of the gear cam assembly Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the cam absorbs spring shock transmitted through the first brake shoe base plate and the second brake shoe base plate configured to prevent damage to the gear cam assembly” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 16 (line 1), in the recitation of “wherein in a second position” the difference between the position recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “second position” recited in claim 16 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein in [[a]] the second position” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 17 (line 1), in the recitation of “wherein in a third position” the difference between the position recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “third position” recited in claim 17 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein in [[a]] the third position” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 17 (lines 3-5), in the recitation of “thereby forming a first shim gap and a second shim gap respectively to allow insertion of the shim in each of the first shim gap and the second shim gap” it is unclear how many shims Applicant intends to recite. Applicant could recite “thereby forming a first shim gap and a second shim gap respectively to allow insertion of the respective shim in each of the first shim gap and the second shim gap” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18 (lines 14-16), in the recitation of “forming a first shim gap and a second shim gap respectively to allow insertion of the shim in each of the first shim gap and the second shim gap” it is unclear how many shims Applicant intends to recite. Applicant could recite “forming a first shim gap and a second shim gap respectively to allow insertion of [[the]] a respective shim in each of the first shim gap and the second shim gap” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 2-17 is rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base 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 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kickbush (US 2005/0120903).
Regarding Claim 18, Kickbush teaches a retarder module (Figs. 1-2 and 8-10, “retarder” 12) to control a movement of a railcar (Abstract – “The present invention provides a releasable skate retarder for railway cars”) by performing at least one of:
receiving a friction force at a first brake shoe (upper “shoe” 27, 26 and 25) and a second brake shoe (lower “shoe” 27, 26, 25) by wheels (“wheel” 17) of the railcar (see Abstract),
whereby the speed of the railcar is reduced and the railcar is stopped due to compression action performed by a first brake spring (Fig. 2, upper “springs” 37), a second brake spring (upper “springs” 38), a third brake spring (lower 37) and a fourth brake spring (upper 38; see [0021] below),
wherein a first position arm plate (Figs. 2 and 8-10; upper “spring pack plate” 35) and a second position arm plate (lower 35) move forward the first brake spring (upper 37), the second brake spring (upper 38), the third brake spring (lower 37) and the fourth brake spring (lower 38) respectively and hold the wheels (17) of the railcar (see [0021] below), wherein the retarder module (12) is in a first position ([0021] – “Referring also to FIG. 2 the retarder 12 further includes a plurality of spring packs, such as spring packs 31-34, and an operating mechanism 36. In one embodiment, the retarder 12 includes eighteen spring packs. Each of the spring packs 31-34 includes a pair of springs 37 and 38. The springs 37 and 38 produce an outwardly directed force on the shoe beams 20 and 22 to move the shoe beams 20 and 22 toward their related running rails 14 and 16, for applying a frictional force to the wheels of a railway car moving into or located within the retarder 12” emphasis added);
decompressing the first brake spring (upper 37), the second brake spring (upper 38), the third brake spring (lower 37) and the fourth brake spring (lower 38) and releasing the wheels (17) of the railcar, wherein the retarder module (12) is in a second position (position seen in Fig. 5); and
separating a first spring base plate (Figs. 8-10, upper “frame rail” 55) from the first position arm plate (35) and a second spring base plate (lower 55) from the second position arm plate (lower 35), thereby forming a first shim gap (upper “gap” 154) and a second shim gap (lower 154) respectively to allow insertion of the shim (“shims” 150) in each of the first shim gap (upper 154) and the second shim gap (lower 154), wherein the retarder module (12) is in a third position (see Figs. 8-10; Abstract – “The retarder is operable in a service mode in which the operating mechanism moves the shoe beams outwardly, allowing the insertion of shims which cause the shoes to be repositioned closer to the running rails to compensate for shoe wear” emphasis added).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Hannauer (US 1,782,874), Cover (US 1.459,574), Atwood (US 952,494), Farmer (US 2,103,354), Bodkin (US 5,388,525), Kickbush (US 8,505,460), Bone (US 1,812,191) and Thrasher (WO 2025/110989) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar retarder modules comprising brake units related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655