DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/15/23 and 01/20/26 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 now recites “carrying out the first and second tamping process processes after the second lifting process by using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.” The amendment appears to require both the first tamping process and the second tamping process to be carried out after the second lifting process by using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.
The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of that sequence. The disclosure describes a first/deep tamping process after the first lifting process, followed by stabilization, and then a later/final tamping process after the second lifting process. The disclosure supports, at most, carrying out the tamping process after the second lifting process by means of a multi-sleeper tamping unit. It does not support moving both the first deep tamping process and the second/final tamping process to after the second lifting process.
Applicant’s reliance on the specification’s disclosure of a tamping process after the second lifting process is not persuasive because that disclosure supports the later/final tamping process after the second lifting process, not both the first and second tamping processes after the second lifting process. Claim 18 therefore introduces subject matter not reasonably conveyed by the originally filed disclosure.
PRIOR ART REFERENCES USED
Reference 1: Theurer et al., US 8,240,253 B2, issued Aug. 14, 2012 (“METHOD AND MACHINE FOR COMPRESSING BALLAST OF A RAIL TRACK”).
Reference 2: Theurer, CA 2,171,172 C, published Dec. 20, 2005 (“METHOD FOR TAMPING A PLURALITY OF SLEEPERS OF A TRACK”).
Reference 3: Theurer, US 4,799,430, issued Jan. 24, 1989 (“MOBILE BALLAST CLEANING APPARATUS”).
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 9, 11-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claims 10, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3, and further in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art for the conventional numerical operating values recited in those claims.
The primary reference is Reference 1 because Reference 1 is directed to a track-bound ballast cleaning/consolidation workflow including a cleaning machine, cleaned/new ballast placement in layers, tamping, and stabilizing. Reference 2 is used for the additional teachings of a first tamping pass, a subsequent second tamping pass, vertically adjustable tamping units, vibrating/squeezing tamping tools, and multi-sleeper tamping. Reference 3 is used for the explicit ballast-removal and cleaned-ballast redistribution features, including removal of ballast from below the track panel, first and second ballast layers, and a cleaning apparatus including track lifting/lining and tamping equipment.
───────
A method for cleaning a ballast bed of a track by using track-bound machines, the method comprising:
using a cleaning machine with a ballast removal device to remove ballast located below a track panel;
prior to a first tamping process, using a ballast placement device and a ballast train to place at least one of cleaned or new ballast in a plurality of layers behind in the track relative to a working direction;
using a tamping machine and a deep tamping unit to compact the ballast bed in different depth layers relative to a ballast bed thickness during the first tamping process;
then using a stabilizing machine to stabilize the track;
using the tamping machine to then immediately tamp the track panel in only one depth layer of the different depth layers in a second tamping process; and
using the stabilizing machine or a further stabilizing machine to stabilize the track after the second tamping process.
CLAIM 9 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches a method using track-bound machines for ballast cleaning and consolidation. Reference 1 discloses a machine 1 for consolidation of ballast 2 of track 3 operating with cleaning machine 4. Cleaning machine 4 includes ballast pick-up chain 5, screening plant 6, and discharge belt 7. Machine 1 is positioned behind cleaning machine 4 in working direction 9. Machine 1 includes track lifting unit 10, tamping unit 11, front stabilizing unit 24, rear stabilizing unit 18, ballast chute 25, conveyor belt 26, and deflection device 27. Thus, Reference 1 teaches track-bound machines used in a ballast cleaning/consolidation method.
Reference 3 further teaches a mobile ballast cleaning apparatus 1 mounted for movement in operating direction 17 on track 4, including first work vehicle 5, second work vehicle 7, and third work vehicle 8. Reference 3 expressly teaches that track 4 includes rails 3 and ties 2 supported on ballast, thereby corresponding to the claimed track panel.
As to “using a cleaning machine with a ballast removal device to remove ballast located below a track panel,” Reference 1 teaches cleaning machine 4 having ballast pick-up chain 5 and screening plant 6. Reference 3 more explicitly teaches that track lifting device 44 and auxiliary track lifting device 45 lift track 4 to enable vertically adjustable ballast excavating and conveying chain 6 to be placed under the track. Endless chain 6 excavates dirty and encrusted ballast from below track 4 and conveys the excavated ballast to conveyor band 9 and screening units 11. Thus, the combined teachings disclose removing ballast located below a track panel using a cleaning machine with a ballast removal device.
As to “prior to a first tamping process, using a ballast placement device and a ballast train to place at least one of cleaned or new ballast in a plurality of layers behind in the track relative to a working direction,” Reference 1 teaches forming first ballast layer 29 by discharging cleaned ballast 2 from screening plant 6. Reference 1 then teaches supplying new ballast 2 from storage wagons to conveyor belt 26 and discharging ballast through ballast chute 25 to form second ballast layer 30. The first layer 29 and second layer 30 are formed before tamping unit 11 tamps the track. The formation occurs in working direction 9 behind cleaning machine 4. Storage wagons supplying ballast to conveyor belt 26 correspond to a ballast train.
Reference 3 also teaches cleaned ballast conveying and redistributing installation 19, first ballast redistributing outlet 22, and second ballast redistributing outlet 25. Ballast flow deflector 30 directs cleaned ballast to first outlet 22 for forming first layer 26 and/or to second outlet 25 for forming second layer 28 over first layer 26. Reference 3 further teaches cleaned ballast storage container 49 and adjustable outlet openings 48 for controlling the second ballast layer, and freight trains 18 and 52 used in connection with ballast/waste movement. Thus, Reference 3 confirms that cleaned ballast may be placed in multiple layers behind the excavation/cleaning operation using train-based ballast handling.
As to “using a tamping machine and a deep tamping unit to compact the ballast bed in different depth layers relative to a ballast bed thickness during the first tamping process,” Reference 1 teaches track lifting unit 10 and tamping unit 11 arranged on satellite 12. Reference 1 also expressly identifies the problem of compacting newly formed ballast layers and teaches that introducing ballast in layers improves penetration of the compaction effect into deeper layers and provides more homogeneous compaction of the ballast bed. Reference 1’s tamping unit 11 is positioned after ballast chute 25 and after formation of second layer 30, such that tamping occurs after layered ballast placement.
Reference 2 teaches a tamping machine arrangement including multiple tamping units 18 and 19, tamping tools 21, tamping tines 20, vibration drive 23, squeeze drives 24, and vertical adjustment drives 25. The tamping tools are lowered into ballast, vibrated, and squeezed to compact ballast under sleepers 22. The vertical adjustment drives 25 permit the tamping units to be lowered to selected depths. In view of Reference 1’s express goal of improved compaction penetration into deeper layers of a newly formed layered ballast bed, it would have been obvious to configure or operate the tamping unit 11 of Reference 1 using the vertically adjustable, vibrating, and squeezing tamping-tool arrangement of Reference 2 so that the tines are inserted at different selected depths relative to the ballast bed thickness. The lower insertion depth compacts a lower ballast region, and the higher insertion depth compacts an upper ballast region. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “deep tamping unit,” such a vertically adjustable tamping unit operated at a lower/deeper ballast depth functions as the claimed deep tamping unit.
As to “then using a stabilizing machine to stabilize the track,” Reference 1 expressly teaches rear stabilizing unit 18 following tamping unit 11. Stabilizing unit 18 is connected to eccentric drive 19 for producing horizontal transverse oscillations and is pressed against rails 20 by roller clamps. Drives 21 apply vertical static loads to track 3. After tamping by tamping unit 11, track 3 is again loaded with vertical load by rear stabilizing unit 18 and set in horizontal transverse oscillations, thereby stabilizing/consolidating the track and ballast bed. Reference 1 also teaches front stabilizing unit 24, configured like rear stabilizing unit 18. Thus, Reference 1 teaches the claimed stabilizing machine.
As to “using the tamping machine to then immediately tamp the track panel in only one depth layer of the different depth layers in a second tamping process,” Reference 2 teaches a two-stage tamping method including first tamping pass A and subsequently performed second tamping pass B. In Reference 2, groups of sleepers x and y are tamped during first tamping pass A, and remaining sleepers z are tamped in second tamping pass B. Reference 2 teaches that second tamping pass B is performed subsequently and independently of the cycle of first tamping pass A, with the target position of the track remaining unchanged. Reference 2 further teaches that residual tamping is performed by tamping tines 48 and squeeze drives 58 after the earlier group tamping operation. Thus, Reference 2 teaches a second tamping operation after an initial tamping operation.
It would have been obvious to perform the subsequent second tamping pass of Reference 2 in the Reference 1 workflow after the first tamping/stabilization sequence to provide final or residual tamping of the track panel. Reference 2’s residual/second tamping pass B teaches a single normal tamping operation rather than a multi-depth deep tamping operation. The claimed “one depth layer” is therefore taught or suggested by Reference 2’s subsequent residual tamping pass when incorporated into Reference 1’s layered ballast cleaning/consolidation method.
As to “using the stabilizing machine or a further stabilizing machine to stabilize the track after the second tamping process,” Reference 1 teaches that after tamping, stabilization is used to consolidate the ballast bed by applying vertical load and horizontal transverse oscillations using stabilizing units 18 and/or 24. Once the second tamping process of Reference 2 is added to Reference 1’s workflow, it would have been obvious to stabilize the track after the second tamping process using the same stabilizing unit 18 or a further stabilizing unit because the same reason for stabilizing after tamping applies after the second tamping process: tamping disturbs and rearranges ballast, and stabilization consolidates the ballast bed and reduces later settlement.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 1 with Reference 2 and Reference 3 because the references are all directed to track-bound railway ballast maintenance involving ballast cleaning, ballast placement, tamping, lifting/lining, and stabilization or compaction. Reference 1 provides the best primary workflow because it discloses the cleaning machine 4, ballast pick-up chain 5, screening plant 6, ballast layers 29 and 30, track lifting unit 10, tamping unit 11, and stabilizing units 18 and 24. Reference 2 supplies the known two-stage tamping practice and the vertically adjustable vibrating/squeezing tamping tools needed for different depth operation. Reference 3 supplies explicit ballast removal below the track panel and cleaned ballast redistribution into first and second layers by outlets 22 and 25.
The combination is a predictable use of known track-maintenance components for their known purposes. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the vertically adjustable tamping tools of Reference 2 in the layered ballast workflow of Reference 1 to improve compaction through the ballast bed thickness, particularly because Reference 1 expressly recognizes the benefit of compaction reaching deeper layers. A person of ordinary skill would also have been motivated to add the subsequent second tamping pass of Reference 2 to improve final track geometry and residual tamping quality, and then to stabilize after that second tamping because Reference 1 teaches stabilizing after tamping to consolidate the ballast bed. The modification would have yielded predictable results and would not have changed the principle of operation of the references.
───────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises cleaning the ballast bed at least with to a removal height of at least 300 mm.
CLAIM 10 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF APPLICANT’S ADMITTED PRIOR ART
ANALYSIS
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and includes all limitations of claim 9, which are addressed above.
Claim 10 further recites “cleaning the ballast bed at least with to a removal height of at least 300 mm.” As stated above, the phrase “at least with to” is objected to as informal. For purposes of prior-art examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring cleaning the ballast bed to a removal height of at least 300 mm.
Reference 3 teaches vertically adjustable ballast excavating and conveying chain 6 positioned under lifted track 4 by track lifting device 44 and auxiliary track lifting device 45. Reference 3 expressly teaches that chain 6 is vertically adjustable and that the depth of ballast excavation and layer formation may be controlled. Reference 1 similarly teaches cleaning machine 4 having ballast pick-up chain 5 and screening plant 6 for cleaning ballast in a ballast-bed renewal workflow.
Applicant’s admitted prior art describes a conventional ballast cleaning operation in which the excavating/removal height is usually 300 mm. Thus, the exact claimed 300 mm value was known as a conventional ballast cleaning removal height. The claim merely applies that conventional removal height to the known cleaning/removal operation taught by References 1 and 3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 10
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select a removal height of at least 300 mm because Reference 3 teaches a vertically adjustable excavating chain 6 for controlling the depth of ballast removal, and Applicant’s admitted prior art identifies 300 mm as a conventional removal height. The selected height is a routine operating parameter used to remove fouled ballast below the track panel to a sufficient depth for reballasting, tamping, and stabilizing. Selecting a conventional, known removal height for a vertically adjustable ballast removal device would have yielded the predictable result of removing the desired amount of ballast from beneath the track panel.
───────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises using the ballast placement device to place the ballast for a bed height of at least 200 mm measured from an exposed formation to lower edges of sleepers.
CLAIM 11 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and includes all limitations of claim 9, which are addressed above.
Claim 11 further recites using the ballast placement device to place ballast for a bed height of at least 200 mm measured from an exposed formation to lower edges of sleepers.
Reference 1 teaches forming first ballast layer 29 from cleaned ballast and forming second ballast layer 30 from additional ballast discharged via ballast chute 25. Reference 1 teaches that ballast is introduced in layers and that the track is lifted by track lifting unit 10 while the second layer 30 is formed. The amount of ballast discharged through ballast chute 25 and conveyor belt 26 controls the bed height produced under track 3.
Reference 3 teaches first ballast layer 26 formed through first outlet 22 and second ballast layer 28 formed through second outlet 25. Reference 3 further teaches adjustable outlet openings 48 in storage container 49 for controlling the amount of cleaned ballast discharged, and teaches that the operator adjusts the outlet openings so that sufficient ballast is available at intersections 68 of ties and rails to assure uniform and high-quality tamping. Reference 3 also teaches that the depth of the layers of cleaned ballast may be controlled. Thus, References 1 and 3 teach forming a controlled ballast bed height between the exposed formation/excavated bed and the lower edges of ties/sleepers.
The claimed value “at least 200 mm” is an obvious result of selecting the quantity of ballast discharged and the track lift during known ballast-bed reconstruction. The claim does not identify any criticality or unexpected result for the 200 mm value.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 11
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to place ballast for a bed height of at least 200 mm because References 1 and 3 teach controlled layered ballast placement below the track and controlled discharge of cleaned/new ballast. A person of ordinary skill would have selected a bed height sufficient to support the sleepers, provide ballast volume for tamping, and permit stabilization of the track. Bed height is a result-effective operating parameter in ballast-bed reconstruction; increasing or selecting the bed height to at least 200 mm would have been a routine design choice to provide adequate ballast support and compaction volume.
───────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises using the ballast placement device to place the ballast for a bed height of at least 250 mm measured from an exposed formation to lower edges of sleepers.
CLAIM 12 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and includes all limitations of claim 9, which are addressed above.
Claim 12 further recites using the ballast placement device to place ballast for a bed height of at least 250 mm measured from an exposed formation to lower edges of sleepers.
Reference 1 teaches forming first ballast layer 29 and second ballast layer 30 by controlled discharge of cleaned and/or new ballast from screening plant 6, storage wagons, conveyor belt 26, deflection device 27, and ballast chute 25. Reference 3 teaches first layer 26 and second layer 28 formed by cleaned ballast redistributing outlets 22 and 25, storage container 49, and adjustable outlet openings 48. Reference 3 teaches controlling the amount and depth of the layers so that there is sufficient ballast for high-quality tamping.
The claimed value “at least 250 mm” is a larger selected ballast bed height within the same known controlled ballast placement process. The prior art teaches the mechanism for controlling bed height, and the selection of a particular bed height is a routine engineering choice depending on the desired ballast support, track geometry, and compaction requirements. Applicant has not shown that 250 mm is critical or produces an unexpected result.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 12
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select a bed height of at least 250 mm because the art teaches controlled ballast placement in multiple layers and controlling the ballast quantity delivered under and around the sleepers. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that increasing the placed ballast bed height provides additional ballast support and permits the ballast bed to reach the desired final support thickness after tamping and stabilization. The claimed 250 mm value is therefore an obvious optimization of a known result-effective variable.
───────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises lifting the track panel by at least 50 mm in a first lifting process.
CLAIM 13 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and includes all limitations of claim 9, which are addressed above.
Claim 13 further recites lifting the track panel by at least 50 mm in a first lifting process.
Reference 1 teaches track lifting unit 10 used in connection with tamping unit 11 and the formation of second ballast layer 30. Reference 1 teaches that track 3 is lifted while additional ballast is discharged to form second ballast layer 30 and before tamping by tamping unit 11. Reference 2 teaches lifting track 2 into a target position before first tamping pass A using the lifting/lining arrangement of the tamping machine. Reference 3 teaches track lifting device 44 and auxiliary track lifting device 45 for lifting track 4 to place excavating chain 6 under the track, and teaches track lifting and lining unit 54 used with tamping unit 53.
The applied references therefore teach a first lifting process. The claimed numerical value “at least 50 mm” is an operating setting of the known track lifting devices/units. The claim does not require a particular structure for producing the lift beyond the known lifting unit, nor does it identify any criticality for 50 mm.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 13
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to lift the track panel by at least 50 mm in the first lifting process because References 1, 2, and 3 each teach track lifting in connection with ballast placement and tamping. A person of ordinary skill would have selected a lift amount sufficient to accommodate the newly placed ballast and to allow effective tamping under the sleepers. Selecting at least 50 mm is a routine optimization of a known lift parameter to provide clearance and achieve the desired track position.
───────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises lifting the track panel by at least 70 mm in a first lifting process.
CLAIM 14 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Claim 14 depends from claim 9 and includes all limitations of claim 9, which are addressed above.
Claim 14 further recites lifting the track panel by at least 70 mm in a first lifting process.
Reference 1 teaches lifting track 3 using track lifting unit 10 while forming second ballast layer 30 and before tamping with tamping unit 11. Reference 2 teaches lifting track 2 into the desired target position before first tamping pass A. Reference 3 teaches track lifting device 44, auxiliary track lifting device 45, and track lifting/lining unit 54.
The applied references teach the first lifting process. The claimed “at least 70 mm” value is a selected operating value for known lifting devices. A larger lift such as 70 mm would be used where a thicker ballast layer is being placed or where the track must be raised to accommodate tamping and final geometry correction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 14
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to lift the track panel by at least 70 mm because the prior art teaches lifting the track during ballast placement and tamping, and the amount of lift is selected according to ballast quantity, sleeper position, and desired track geometry. A person of ordinary skill would have selected a lift of at least 70 mm when forming a relatively high ballast bed and performing tamping after reballasting. The result would have been predictable: sufficient clearance and ballast volume for compaction under the sleepers.
───────
The method according to claim 13, which further comprises lifting the track panel during a second lifting process with a lift in a range between 15 mm and 25 mm.
CLAIM 15 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF APPLICANT’S ADMITTED PRIOR ART
ANALYSIS
Claim 15 depends from claim 13 and includes all limitations of claims 9 and 13, which are addressed above.
Claim 15 further recites lifting the track panel during a second lifting process with a lift in a range between 15 mm and 25 mm.
Reference 2 teaches a first tamping pass A and a subsequently performed second tamping pass B. Reference 2 teaches that track 2 is lifted into a target position before the first tamping pass and that the subsequent pass is used to tamp remaining sleepers/residual locations while preserving track geometry. Reference 1 teaches that stabilization occurs after tamping and that stabilization applies vertical load and horizontal transverse oscillation to consolidate the ballast bed. Reference 3 teaches track lifting/lining unit 54 used with tamping unit 53 to correct the track position.
Applicant’s admitted prior art identifies a final tamping/lifting operation with a lift of 20 mm to 25 mm as conventional. The claimed range of 15 mm to 25 mm encompasses that conventional final lift range. Thus, the concept of a smaller second/final lift following earlier major ballast placement and tamping was known.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 15
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide a second lifting process with a lift between 15 mm and 25 mm because Reference 2 teaches a subsequent tamping pass for final/residual tamping, Reference 1 teaches stabilization after tamping, Reference 3 teaches track lifting/lining with tamping, and Applicant’s admitted prior art identifies a final lift of 20 mm to 25 mm as conventional. A person of ordinary skill would have used a smaller second lift to make final track geometry correction and account for expected settlement during subsequent stabilization while avoiding unnecessary disturbance of the already compacted ballast bed. The claimed range is therefore an obvious final-geometry operating range.
───────
The method according to claim 13, which further comprises lifting the track panel during a second lifting process with a lift in a range between 20 mm and 25 mm.
CLAIM 16 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF APPLICANT’S ADMITTED PRIOR ART
ANALYSIS
Claim 16 depends from claim 13 and includes all limitations of claims 9 and 13, which are addressed above.
Claim 16 further recites lifting the track panel during a second lifting process with a lift in a range between 20 mm and 25 mm.
Reference 2 teaches a subsequent second tamping pass B. Reference 3 teaches track lifting/lining unit 54 used with tamping unit 53. Reference 1 teaches stabilization after tamping. Applicant’s admitted prior art identifies a final lift of 20 mm to 25 mm as conventional. The claimed range is therefore the same conventional final lift range.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 16
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a second lift in the range of 20 mm to 25 mm because that range is identified as a conventional final lift value and would predictably provide enough over-lift for final track geometry correction before subsequent settlement caused by stabilization. The claimed range is not shown to be critical and represents routine selection of a known final lifting parameter.
───────
The method according to claim 13, which further comprises:
after the first lifting process, carrying out the first tamping process initially in a first depth layer one of the different depth layers of the ballast bed with vibrating and squeezing tamping tines of the deep tamping unit; and
subsequently carrying out the second tamping process in a second depth layer one of the different depth layers of the ballast bed being higher than the first depth tatef layer with the tamping tines.
CLAIM 17 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Claim 17 depends from claim 13 and includes all limitations of claims 9 and 13, which are addressed above.
Claim 17 is indefinite for the reasons stated above. For purposes of prior-art examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring, after the first lifting process, tamping in a first/lower depth layer with vibrating and squeezing tamping tines and subsequently tamping in a second/higher depth layer with the tamping tines.
Reference 1 teaches track lifting unit 10 and tamping unit 11 in the layered ballast placement workflow. Reference 1 teaches first ballast layer 29 and second ballast layer 30 and recognizes the desirability of compacting deeper layers of the ballast bed for more homogeneous ballast-bed consolidation. Reference 1 therefore supplies the context for tamping a newly layered ballast bed after a first lifting operation.
Reference 2 teaches tamping tools 21 including tamping tines 20, vibration drive 23, squeeze drives 24, and vertical adjustment drives 25. The tamping tines are vibrated and squeezed to compact ballast. The vertical adjustment drives 25 provide the ability to lower the tamping units to selected depths. Thus, Reference 2 teaches vibrating and squeezing tamping tines that may be operated at different vertical positions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to operate the vertically adjustable vibrating/squeezing tamping tines of Reference 2 in the Reference 1 layered ballast workflow first at a lower/deeper penetration depth and then at a higher/shallower penetration depth. The first operation compacts the lower region of the layered ballast bed, and the second operation compacts the upper region nearer the sleepers. To the extent claim 17 requires the same tamping tines, use of the same vertically adjustable tines at two different depths is a predictable use of Reference 2’s vertical adjustment capability.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 17
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to perform tamping first in a lower depth layer and then in a higher depth layer using vibrating and squeezing tamping tines because Reference 1 expressly teaches that layered ballast placement improves compaction penetration into deeper layers and produces a more homogeneous ballast bed, while Reference 2 provides vertically adjustable tamping tines with vibration and squeezing. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that using the adjustable tines at different depths would improve compaction through the ballast bed thickness after layered ballast placement. The modification is a predictable use of known tamping equipment for its known function.
───────
The method according to claim 15, which further comprises carrying out the first and second tamping process processes after the second lifting process by using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.
CLAIM 18 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF APPLICANT’S ADMITTED PRIOR ART
ANALYSIS
Claim 18 depends from claim 15 and includes all limitations of claims 9, 13, and 15, which are addressed above.
Claim 18 is indefinite and lacks written description support for the reasons stated above. For purposes of prior-art examination, the Office interprets claim 18 as requiring that the tamping process performed after the second lifting process is carried out using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.
Reference 2 expressly teaches multiple tamping units 18 and 19 configured to tamp multiple sleepers 22. Reference 2 teaches first tamping pass A in which sleeper groups x and y, each including at least two sleepers 22, are tamped simultaneously. Reference 2 also teaches multi-sleeper tamping to provide high tamping output while maintaining accurate and durable track geometry. Thus, Reference 2 teaches using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.
Reference 3 teaches track lifting/lining unit 54 and tamping unit 53 mounted on third work vehicle 8, with the units displaced from tie to tie during continuous advance of the ballast cleaning apparatus. Reference 1 teaches a continuously traveling train formation and cyclic tamping by tamping unit 11. Applicant’s admitted prior art identifies a conventional final lift of 20 mm to 25 mm, and claim 15’s second lift range has been addressed above.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 18
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a multi-sleeper tamping unit for the tamping process after the second lifting process because Reference 2 teaches multi-sleeper tamping units 18 and 19 for increasing tamping output and maintaining durable geometry. In the Reference 1/Reference 3 ballast cleaning workflow, using a multi-sleeper tamping unit during the final/second tamping stage would predictably increase working speed and efficiency while performing the same known tamping function. The modification would have been a straightforward substitution of a known higher-output tamping unit for a known tamping operation.
───────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises carrying out tamping work with a tamping machine integrated into a cleaning train.
CLAIM 19 - REJECTED OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
ANALYSIS
Claim 19 depends from claim 9 and includes all limitations of claim 9, which are addressed above.
Claim 19 further recites carrying out tamping work with a tamping machine integrated into a cleaning train.
Reference 1 teaches a train formation consisting of machine 1 for two-step ballast consolidation and cleaning machine 4 traveling continuously in working direction 9. Machine 1 includes track lifting unit 10 and tamping unit 11, and machine 1 is situated immediately behind cleaning machine 4. Reference 1 further teaches a variant in which front frame part 23 of machine 1 is connected to cleaning machine 4. Thus, Reference 1 teaches tamping work integrated with a cleaning train.
Reference 3 also teaches a mobile ballast cleaning apparatus including first work vehicle 5, second work vehicle 7, and third work vehicle 8. Third work vehicle 8 carries track lifting/lining unit 54 and tamping unit 53, and the units operate in the same mobile ballast cleaning apparatus that includes ballast excavating chain 6, screening units 11, cleaned ballast conveying installation 19, first outlet 22, and second outlet 25. Thus, Reference 3 teaches tamping equipment integrated into a mobile ballast cleaning train.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE - CLAIM 19
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to carry out tamping work with a tamping machine integrated into a cleaning train because References 1 and 3 expressly teach integrated train-based arrangements in which cleaning, ballast placement, lifting/lining, tamping, and stabilization/compaction operations are performed in a coordinated sequence. Integration reduces separate work passes, improves continuity of operation, and increases maintenance efficiency. The result would have been predictable because the tamping unit performs the same known tamping function in the known cleaning-train environment.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that adding “relative to a ballast bed thickness” and “only one of the different depth layers” resolves the depth-layer issue. This argument is not persuasive. The added phrase identifies a general reference direction but does define the boundaries of a depth layer, the number of layers, the tool penetration depth corresponding to any layer, or which depth layer is selected for the second tamping process. The claim still fails to identify objective metes and bounds for “different depth layers” and “only one depth layer of the different depth layers.”
Applicant argues that claim 17 was amended to make clear that the first tamping process is carried out both initially in a first one of the different depth layers and subsequently in a second one of the different depth layers. This argument is not persuasive because the claim text does not say that. The claim recites “carrying out the first tamping process initially” in a first depth layer and then “subsequently carrying out the second tamping process” in a second depth layer. Thus, the claim text continues to create uncertainty as to whether both depth-layer tamping steps occur during the first tamping process or whether the first and second tamping processes are each performed in different respective depth layers.
Applicant argues that claim 18 was amended to make clear that the first and second tamping processes are carried out after the second lifting process. This argument is not persuasive. The amendment introduces “process processes” and appears to require both the first deep tamping process and the later second tamping process to occur after the second lifting process. That sequence is unclear and lacks written description support. The specification supports the later/final tamping process after the second lifting process, not both the first and second tamping processes after the second lifting process.
As to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant argues that Reference 1 does not disclose tamping in different depth layers, Reference 2 does not disclose cleaning/stabilization/reballasting, and Reference 3 does not disclose different-depth tamping, two tamping processes, or stabilization. These arguments are not persuasive because they attack the references individually rather than addressing the combined teachings relied upon in the rejection. The rejection does not rely on any one reference for all claim limitations. Reference 1 is relied upon as the primary reference for the track-bound cleaning, ballast placement in layers, tamping, and stabilizing workflow. Reference 2 is relied upon for the first and second tamping pass teachings and the vertically adjustable vibrating/squeezing tamping tools. Reference 3 is relied upon for explicit ballast removal below the lifted track panel and cleaned ballast redistribution into first and second layers in a mobile cleaning apparatus.
The proper inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 103 is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the combined teachings of the references, not whether each reference independently teaches every limitation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant has not identified a teaching away, incompatibility, or a change in principle of operation that would have discouraged combining the ballast cleaning/layering/stabilizing workflow of Reference 1 with the two-pass and vertically adjustable tamping teachings of Reference 2 and the explicit ballast removal/redistribution teachings of Reference 3.
Applicant argues that none of the references provides any indication of the claimed sequence including stabilizing, different-depth tamping, and a second tamping process. This argument is not persuasive. Reference 1 teaches a sequence including formation of ballast layers, tamping, and stabilization by stabilizing units 18 and 24. Reference 2 teaches a first tamping pass A and a subsequently performed second tamping pass B, with vertically adjustable tamping units and vibrating/squeezing tamping tools. Reference 3 teaches removal of ballast below the track panel using excavating chain 6, cleaned ballast redistribution through outlets 22 and 25 to form first layer 26 and second layer 28, and tamping with tamping unit 53 in an integrated cleaning apparatus. Combining these known features would have predictably produced the claimed sequence.
Applicant’s assertion that there is “no hint” of tamping in different depth layers is also not persuasive under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Reference 1 expressly recognizes that layered ballast introduction improves the penetration effect of compaction into deeper layers and provides a more homogeneous ballast bed. Reference 2 teaches tamping tines and tamping tools that are vertically adjustable and operated with vibration and squeezing. A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to operate such vertically adjustable tines at different depths to compact lower and upper regions of the layered ballast bed formed in Reference 1, especially where Reference 1 expressly identifies deeper-layer compaction and homogeneous compaction as desired results.
Applicant’s argument that the dependent claims are patentable merely because they depend from claim 9 is not persuasive. Applicant has not presented separate substantive arguments for claims 10-19. The dependent claims remain unpatentable for the reasons set forth in the claim-by-claim analyses above.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejections.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights