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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 23-31, drawn to a process for laying tracks in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
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 23-31 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.
Claim 23 recites, “prefabricated slabs according to claim 1” referring to a non-elected claim as the intended use of the process for laying tracks within the claim making the claim unclear.
Claim 24 recites, “a step of removing pre-existing tracks” without reciting when this step is to be completed in relation to the method steps within claim 23 making it unclear when the step is completed within the claimed process.
Claim 25 recites, “a step of excavating a pre-existing ballast” without reciting when this step is to be completed in relation to the method steps within claim 23 making it unclear when the step is completed within the claimed process.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the laying of rails" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “laying of pre-installed temporary rails”.
Claim 26 recite the limitation “the first spacing” within line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the rested type” within line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites, “and/or and” making it unclear which is intended by Applicant. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as “and/or”.
Claim 30 recites, “a tamping connecting between the laid tract and the existing track” which is unclear to Examiner what is intended to be claimed. The claim further recites the limitations “the laid tract” and “the existing track” within line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 28 and 31 are likewise rejected due to their dependence upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 23-26, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 102212757 B1) in view of Tosi (WO 2017187461 A1).
Regarding claim 23: Cho teaches a process for laying tracks for ballastless railway and tramway lines on prefabricated slabs according to claim 1, comprising the following steps: launching of the slabs and laying thereof in sequence on a platform plane, said slabs being laid with pre-installed temporary rails (140; Fig.12b and see attached EPO translation; Col.[0030], lines 4-5); plano-altimetric adjustment of each launched slab, by comparison with topographic references pre-installed along the railway and tramway line (Para.[0074], lines 7-8); junction of said temporary rails to form continuous temporary tracks (Fig.12c); removal of said temporary tracks; installation of definitive rail tracts; and welding of said definitive rail tracts to form definitive tracks (Para.[0091]). Cho does not teach casting of an intermediate or foundation concrete layer between the intrados surface of the slabs and said platform plane.
However, Tosi teaches casting of an intermediate or foundation concrete layer between the intrados surface of the slabs and said platform plane (pg.14, lines 21-34 and Phase 2-2; Fig.10). 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 process of Cho to include casting of an intermediate layer as in Tosi to provide a fixed intermediate layer to further strengthen the position of the slabs and prevent dirt and debris from accumulating under the slabs with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24: Cho further teaches the process according to claim 23, further comprising a step of removing pre-existing tracks (Para.[0074]).
Regarding claim 25: Cho further teaches the process according to claim 23, further comprising a step of excavating a pre-existing ballast, as far as a platform plane (Para.[0074]).
Regarding claim 26: Cho further teaches the process according to claim 23, wherein the laying of rails is performed so that said temporary junctions of the rails (Fig.12c) result to be at the centre of the first spacing of each slab (joint centered between each slab; Fig.12c).
Regarding claim 28: Cho further teaches the process according to claim 23, comprising a step of arranging horizontal stabilizing elements below each slab to be laid (110; Fig.7). Cho does not teach the arrangement preceding the step of casting the intermediate layer, so that said horizontal stabilizing elements result at least partially embedded in the intermediate layer.
However, Tosi teaches the casting of an intermediate layer, so that horizontal stabilizing elements result at least partially embedded in the intermediate layer (pg.14, lines 21-34 and Phase 2-2; Fig.10). 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 process of Cho to include casting of an intermediate layer as in Tosi to provide a fixed intermediate layer to further strengthen the position of the slabs and prevent dirt and debris from accumulating under the slabs with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29: Cho does not teach wherein the concrete of said intermediate layer has a composition so as to guarantee a workability of at least thirty minutes, and development of short-term resistances, preferably a resistance equal to at least 5 MPa within two hours from casting.
However, Tosi teaches the use of concrete for the composition of the intermediate layer (Pg.14, lines 21-34). 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 process of Cho to include casting of an intermediate layer as in Tosi to provide a fixed intermediate layer to further strengthen the position of the slabs and prevent dirt and debris from accumulating under the slabs with a reasonable expectation of success.
Cho in view of Tosi teach the claimed invention except for the guarantee of a workability of at least thirty minutes, and development of short-term resistances, preferably a resistance equal to at least 5 MPa within two hours from casting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize concrete with the desired workability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 31: Cho further teaches the process according to claim 23 performed with a system comprising: a train for launching the slabs, equipped with handling portal and wagon for end-on launching the slabs (210; Fig.11). Cho does not teach a concreting train equipped for the production of concrete and for casting an intermediate or foundation layer, supporting the slabs.
However, Tosi teaches a concreting train equipped for the production of concrete and for casting an intermediate or foundation layer, supporting the slabs (Phase 2-2; Fig.10). 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 process of Cho to include casting of an intermediate layer as in Tosi to provide a fixed intermediate layer to further strengthen the position of the slabs and prevent dirt and debris from accumulating under the slabs with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Tosi and Dixon (WO 2020249981 A1).
Regarding claim 27: Cho teaches the process according to claim 23, with said temporary junctions (Fig.12c). Cho does not teach wherein the junctions are of the rested type and implemented with four-hole jaws.
However, Dixon teaches junctions of prefabricated slab rails that are of the rested type and implemented with four-hole jaws (Fig.8). 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 process of Cho to include temporary junctions as in Dixon to provide additional stability to the temporary junctions for temporary railway operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Tosi and Haban et al. (DE 10200603665 A1).
Regarding claim 30: Cho does not teach a step of implementing transition areas between ballastless permanent way and ballasted permanent way to obtain a maximum variation of the vertical settlement not higher than 0.5 mm, and/or a tamping connecting between the laid tract and the existing track. However, Haban teaches implementing transition areas between ballastless permanent way and ballasted permanent way to obtain a maximum variation of the vertical settlement (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0020-0022]). 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 process of Cho to include transition areas between ballastless and ballasted permanent ways as in Haban for proper railway operations between different stiffness rail sections with a reasonable expectation of success.
Cho in view of Tosi and Haban teach the claimed invention except for obtaining a maximum variation of the vertical settlement not higher than 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design for a maximum variation of the vertical settlement not higher than 0.5 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable 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).
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
Prosecution Insights