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 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 9, 17, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
ISSUE 1 — RELATIVE / TEMPORAL TERM “IMMEDIATELY” (CLAIM 9)
Claim 9 recites “using the tamping machine to then immediately tamp the track panel…” and also recites a sequence that includes stabilization between tamping operations. The term “immediately” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what time interval is permitted between (i) stabilization after the first tamping process and (ii) the “immediately” performed second tamping process. Different reasonable interpretations exist (e.g., “without any intervening work pass,” “within the same continuous working advance,” “without uncoupling/recoupling machines,” or “within a specified distance behind the stabilizer”). The claim does not provide an objective boundary for determining infringement or scope.
ISSUE 2 — “ONLY ONE DEPTH LAYER” AND “DIFFERENT DEPTH LAYERS” LACK OBJECTIVE BOUNDARIES (CLAIM 9)
Claim 9 recites (i) compacting the ballast bed “in different depth layers” during the first tamping process and (ii) then tamping “in only one depth layer” in the second tamping process. The claim does not define what constitutes a “depth layer,” how layers are demarcated, whether layers are defined relative to the sleeper bottom, relative to formation, relative to ballast bed thickness, or by tool immersion depth, nor whether “only one depth layer” means only one immersion depth, only one tamping cycle, only one tool stroke, or only one vertical region of influence. Absent an objective boundary, the scope is unclear.
ISSUE 3 — INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY / UNCLEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN “FIRST TAMPING PROCESS” AND “SECOND TAMPING PROCESS” (CLAIM 9 VS. CLAIM 17)
Claim 9 describes the “first tamping process” as including compaction “in different depth layers” using a deep tamping unit, followed by stabilization, followed by a “second tamping process” that tamps “in only one depth layer.”
Claim 17 then recites: “carrying out the first tamping process in a first depth layer…; and carrying out the second tamping process in a second depth layer… higher than the first…”
This language creates ambiguity as to whether (a) the “different depth layers” are both within the first tamping process (as claim 9 suggests), or (b) the first tamping process is performed in one depth layer and the second tamping process is performed in a different (higher) depth layer (as claim 17 states). The claims therefore fail to distinctly define the claimed sequence and depth-layer allocation across the two tamping processes.
ISSUE 4 — AMBIGUOUS ANTECEDENT / UNCLEAR WHICH “TAMPING PROCESS” IS REFERENCED (CLAIM 18)
Claim 18 recites “carrying out the tamping process after the second lifting process by using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.” Claim 9 includes two tamping processes (first and second). Claim 18 refers to “the tamping process” (singular) without specifying whether it is the first tamping process, the second tamping process, or both. This renders the claim indefinite because the scope is unclear.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 includes an apparent typographical error: “first depth later” (last clause of claim 17). The intended term appears to be “first depth layer” in view of the surrounding claim language (“first depth layer,” “second depth layer”) and the specification’s description of lower/upper depth layers during deep tamping (e.g., [0023], [0044]–[0046]). The claim is objected to as containing a minor informal error. Correction is required for clarity of the record.
Claim 10 recites “cleaning the ballast bed at least with a removal height of 300 mm.” Applicant may wish to consider amending to “to a removal height of at least 300 mm” to improve clarity and consistency with the specification’s description of removal height h1 (e.g., [0030], [0039]).
Claims 11 and 12 recite “place the ballast for a bed height of at least 200 mm / at least 250 mm.” Applicant may wish to consider clarifying the reference for “bed height” (e.g., measured from exposed formation to lower edges of sleepers as described in [0031] and [0041]) if applicant anticipates any dispute regarding how/when the height is measured (e.g., before or after stabilization/settlement).
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 9-19 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.
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 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 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 References 1-3
Claim 9 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
(1) “A method for cleaning a ballast bed of a track by using track-bound machines”
Reference 1 discloses a machine 1 for consolidation of ballast 2 of a track 3 used in combination with a cleaning machine 4, with the combined train formation traveling continuously in a working direction 9, i.e., track-bound machines performing maintenance/cleaning-related operations on the ballast bed of track 3 (machine 1 + cleaning machine 4; working direction 9; track 3; ballast 2).
Reference 3 likewise discloses a mobile ballast cleaning apparatus mounted for mobility on a track (track 4, rails 3, ties 2), comprising multiple coupled work vehicles, i.e., track-bound machines, performing ballast cleaning and subsequent tamping (work vehicles 5, 7, 8; operating direction 17; tamping unit 53; track lifting and lining unit 54).
(2) “using a cleaning machine with a ballast removal device to remove ballast located below a track panel”
Reference 3 discloses a track lifting device 44 and auxiliary track lifting device 45 used to lift track 4 (track panel including rails 3 and ties 2) to enable placement of a ballast excavating and conveying chain 6 under the track for excavating ballast (track lifting devices 44, 45; excavating chain 6 placed under lifted track 4; excavation/removal of dirty ballast by rotating chain 6).
Reference 1 discloses a cleaning machine 4 equipped with a ballast pick-up chain 5 and a screening plant 6, consistent with a ballast removal device used in ballast cleaning operations (cleaning machine 4; ballast pick-up chain 5; screening plant 6).
(3) “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 discloses formation of multiple ballast layers in the working direction 9 before tamping: a first ballast layer 29 is formed by discharging cleaned ballast 2 from the screening plant 6 onto the track 3; additional/new ballast 2 is supplied from storage wagons (not shown) to a conveyor belt 26 and discharged via ballast chute 25 to form a second ballast layer 30 while the track 3 is lifted by the track lifting unit 10; tamping by tamping unit 11 occurs after formation of the second layer (first ballast layer 29; second ballast layer 30; working direction 9; screening plant 6; conveyor belt 26; ballast chute 25; track lifting unit 10; tamping unit 11; storage wagons supplying new ballast as a ballast train).
Thus, Reference 1 teaches placing at least cleaned ballast (from screening plant 6) and/or new ballast (from storage wagons) in a plurality of layers (29, 30) behind the cleaning operation in relation to working direction 9, prior to the tamping step.
Reference 3 further teaches distributing cleaned ballast in multiple layers prior to tamping by providing first and second outlets that form first and second layers of cleaned ballast (first layer 26 formed under lifted track via chute 24/first outlet 22; second layer 28 formed via second outlet 25/outlet openings 48 from storage container 49; operating direction 17), and teaches interaction with a freight train 52 behind the working units, consistent with a train-based logistics arrangement supporting ballast handling (layers 26, 28; outlets 22, 25; storage container 49; freight train 52).
(4) “using a tamping machine and a deep tamping unit to compact the ballast bed in different depth layers during the first tamping process”
Reference 1 teaches tamping the track 3 using a tamping unit 11 as part of a track lifting- and tamping unit 10, 11 on machine 1, with cyclical tamping possible during continuous forward travel (tamping unit 11; track lifting unit 10; cyclical tamping of track 3 parallel to continuous forward travel).
Reference 2 teaches tamping tools configured for vibration and squeezing, with vertical adjustment enabling selection of tool immersion depth: multiple tamping units 18, 19 each include tamping tools 21 with tamping tines 20, vibration drive 23, squeeze drives 24, and drives 25 enabling vertical adjustment of the tamping units (tamping units 18, 19; tools 21; tines 20; vibration drive 23; squeeze drives 24; vertical adjustment drives 25).
Reference 1 further teaches the technical objective of achieving compaction in deeper layers of the ballast bed by introducing ballast in layers and applying consolidation so the compression effect reaches deeper layers for more homogeneous compaction, which would have directed the skilled artisan to employ deeper tamping/variable-depth tamping where appropriate (layered introduction; improved penetration effect into deeper layers; overall homogeneous compaction).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure/operate the tamping unit 11 of Reference 1 with the vertically adjustable tamping unit features of Reference 2 (vertically adjustable tamping units with vibrating and squeezing tines) to function as a “deep tamping unit,” and to perform at least two tamping cycles at different immersion depths (i.e., different depth layers) during the first tamping process to compact deeper and upper regions of the newly formed ballast layers, consistent with the stated objective in Reference 1 of improved deeper-layer compaction.
(5) “then using a stabilizing machine to stabilize the track”
Reference 1 expressly teaches stabilization using stabilizing units applying vertical load and horizontal transverse oscillations: after formation of first layer 29, the track is set in horizontal transverse oscillations under vertical load using a front stabilizing unit 24 to consolidate the first layer; after tamping by tamping unit 11, the track is again loaded with vertical load using rear stabilizing unit 18 and simultaneously set in horizontal transverse oscillations to consolidate the second layer 30 (front stabilizing unit 24; rear stabilizing unit 18; eccentric drive 19; drives 21 applying vertical load; horizontal transverse oscillations; rails 20 engaged by roller clamps).
Thus, Reference 1 teaches stabilizing the track by a stabilizing machine/unit after tamping and also in the overall sequence.
(6) “using the tamping machine to then immediately tamp the track panel in only one depth layer in a second tamping process”
Reference 2 explicitly teaches a two-stage tamping method with a first tamping pass A and a second tamping pass B performed subsequently, with the target position of the track remaining unchanged, and with the second pass performed without lifting the track (first tamping pass A; second tamping pass B performed subsequently; track 2 lifted into target position before pass A; pass B with target position unchanged; no lifting during pass B).
This second pass B corresponds to a finishing/residual tamping operation performed after the first tamping pass, and (because the track is not lifted and the operation is a finishing tamping) would be understood by the skilled artisan as tamping at a single normal immersion depth (i.e., “only one depth layer” in the sense of a single tamping depth for the finishing pass), rather than a multi-depth deep tamping operation.
Applied to Reference 1’s cleaning/consolidation train context, the skilled artisan would have used the same tamping machine (or a tamping machine in the same working train) to perform a subsequent finishing tamping pass after the first tamping pass and stabilization, consistent with Reference 2’s two-pass approach for durable geometry.
(7) “using the stabilizing machine or a further stabilizing machine to stabilize the track after the second tamping process”
Reference 1 teaches that after tamping (tamping unit 11), stabilization is “absolutely mandatory,” and teaches stabilization by applying vertical load and transverse oscillations using well-known track stabilizers (stabilizing units 18, 24; vertical load; horizontal transverse oscillations).
Thus, once a second tamping pass is added per Reference 2, it would have been obvious to stabilize after the second tamping pass as well, using the same stabilizing unit 18 or 24 of Reference 1 or an additional stabilizer, to ensure the ballast bed is consolidated after the finishing tamping operation and to minimize post-maintenance settlement.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 9
It would have been obvious to combine Reference 1 with Reference 2 and Reference 3 because all are in the same field of track-bound ballast maintenance and tamping. Reference 1 explicitly addresses consolidation after ballast cleaning and emphasizes achieving homogeneous compaction reaching deeper ballast layers via layered ballast introduction and stabilization. Reference 2 teaches a proven two-stage tamping methodology (first pass followed by a subsequent finishing pass) and teaches vertically adjustable vibrating/squeezing tamping tools suitable for controlled compaction. Reference 3 teaches a track-lifted ballast removal arrangement with an excavating chain under the track to remove ballast below the track panel, directly supporting the cleaning/removal step used with Reference 1’s cleaning train.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises cleaning the ballast bed at least with a removal height of 300 mm.
Claim 10 — Rejected over References 1-3
Claim 10 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 10 adds: “cleaning the ballast bed at least with a removal height of 300 mm.”
Reference 3 teaches removing ballast beneath the lifted track 4 using a ballast excavating and conveying chain 6 that is vertically adjustable, and teaches that vertical adjustment of chain 6 enables control of the desired depth of operation (track lifting device 44; auxiliary track lifting device 45; chain 6 placed under lifted track; vertical adjustment of chain 6 for controlling depth). This establishes that removal height/depth is a result-effective, adjustable parameter in ballast removal/cleaning operations.
Reference 1 teaches ballast cleaning by cleaning machine 4 with ballast pick-up chain 5 and screening plant 6, consistent with a ballast removal operation where removal depth is selected based on required renewal depth and fouling removal (cleaning machine 4; pick-up chain 5; screening plant 6).
Thus, while the applied references do not require the exact numeric value “300 mm,” they teach the concept of selecting and controlling removal depth via vertical adjustment and track lifting.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 10
It would have been obvious to select a removal height of at least 300 mm as a matter of routine optimization of a recognized result-effective variable (removal depth/height of the ballast removal device) to remove a sufficient thickness of fouled ballast below the sleepers and to expose/renew the ballast bed to an extent suitable for reballasting and consolidation. The prior art teaches that removal depth is adjustable (Reference 3) and that consolidation after cleaning is mandatory (Reference 1); selecting an appropriate removal height within known operational capabilities would have been an obvious design choice absent a showing of criticality.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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.
Claim 11 — Rejected over References 1-3
Claim 11 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 11 adds: placing ballast “for a bed height of at least 200 mm.”
Reference 1 teaches forming a first ballast layer 29 and a second ballast layer 30 by discharging cleaned ballast 2 from screening plant 6 and additional/new ballast 2 via ballast chute 25 while lifting track 3 by track lifting unit 10 (layers 29, 30; screening plant 6; ballast chute 25; track lifting unit 10). The formation of defined layers inherently establishes a controlled ballast bed thickness/height under the track (bed height is determined by the amount discharged and the lift).
Reference 3 likewise teaches forming first and second layers 26 and 28 of cleaned ballast using first outlet 22 and second outlet 25/outlet openings 48, with the amount discharged controlled to assure sufficient ballast for tamping (layers 26, 28; outlets 22, 25; adjustable outlet openings 48; operator adjustment to ensure sufficient ballast for tamping).
Thus, the art teaches controlling ballast discharge quantity to achieve a desired ballast bed thickness/height.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 11
It would have been obvious to select a bed height of at least 200 mm as a routine design/operational target when forming the ballast layers, because ballast bed thickness is a result-effective variable affecting support stiffness and the effectiveness of tamping and stabilization. References 1 and 3 teach layered ballast formation with controlled discharge quantities; selecting a particular minimum bed height to meet known support requirements and to ensure adequate ballast volume for tamping would have been an obvious optimization absent evidence that “200 mm” yields an unexpected result or is critical.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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.
Claim 12 — Rejected over References 1-3
Claim 12 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 12 further specifies the bed height as “at least 250 mm.”
The same disclosures discussed for claim 11 apply: References 1 and 3 teach controlled formation of layered ballast beds by discharging ballast into layers (29, 30; and 26, 28) with controlled discharge quantities and track lift, inherently enabling selection of a thicker bed height such as at least 250 mm.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 12
It would have been obvious to select a thicker minimum bed height (e.g., at least 250 mm) as another obvious value within the known adjustable range of ballast discharge and track lift operations taught by References 1 and 3, to provide increased ballast volume and support after cleaning and to facilitate robust tamping/stabilization. This is routine optimization of a result-effective variable absent criticality or unexpected results.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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 References 1-3
Claim 13 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 13 adds: “lifting the track panel by at least 50 mm in a first lifting process.”
Reference 1 teaches lifting track 3 using track lifting unit 10 when discharging ballast via ballast chute 25 to form the second ballast layer 30 (track lifting unit 10; track 3 lifted while forming second layer 30).
Reference 2 teaches lifting track 2 into a desired target position immediately before the first tamping pass A using a track lifting and lining unit 27 vertically adjustable by drives 26 (track 2 lifted into target position; lifting and lining unit 27; drives 26).
Reference 3 teaches lifting track 4 using track lifting device 44 and auxiliary track lifting device 45 during ballast cleaning and excavation (track lifting devices 44, 45; lifted track 4).
Thus, the applied references clearly teach a first lifting process; the claimed numeric minimum lift is a value selected within the adjustable lift capability.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 13
It would have been obvious to select a first lift amount of at least 50 mm as a routine operational setting of the known track lifting units (Reference 1: unit 10; Reference 2: unit 27; Reference 3: units 44/45) to provide clearance for ballast placement/tamping and to achieve the desired raised position for consolidation. Lift magnitude is a result-effective variable dependent on ballast volume, desired geometry correction, and machine constraints; selecting at least 50 mm would have been an obvious optimization absent evidence of criticality.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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 References 1-3
Claim 14 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 14 further specifies the first lift as “at least 70 mm.”
As discussed for claim 13, References 1-3 teach track lifting operations by track lifting units (Reference 1: 10; Reference 2: 27; Reference 3: 44/45). The specific minimum lift value is a selectable operational parameter within the capability of the disclosed lifting units.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 14
It would have been obvious to select a first lift of at least 70 mm as another routine lift setting (i) to accommodate thicker ballast placement (e.g., the layered ballast bed formation in Reference 1 and Reference 3), and (ii) to provide sufficient lift for effective tamping under the sleepers in the first pass (Reference 2’s first tamping pass A performed with the track lifted into target position). This is routine parameter selection/optimization of a known lifting process.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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 References 1-3
Claim 15 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 15 adds a “second lifting process” with a lift between 15 mm and 25 mm.
Reference 2 teaches a two-stage tamping method wherein the first tamping pass A occurs with track 2 lifted into target position, and the second tamping pass B occurs subsequently with the target position unchanged (i.e., a finishing/residual tamping operation following the first pass) (passes A and B; target position unchanged in pass B).
Reference 1 teaches that stabilization after tamping is mandatory and is performed under vertical load with transverse oscillations (stabilizing units 18, 24). Such stabilization is known to cause settlement of the track/ballast system; accordingly, a finishing lift (i.e., a second lifting process) may be applied as an overlift to account for expected settlement so that, after stabilization, the track reaches the intended geometry.
Reference 3 teaches track lifting and lining unit 54 used with tamping unit 53 to correct track position during cyclic operations (track lifting and lining unit 54; tamping unit 53).
Thus, the art teaches a first lift and then subsequent finishing operations; incorporating a smaller second lift as an overlift before finishing tamping is an obvious refinement to account for settlement from stabilization and to finalize geometry.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 15
It would have been obvious to provide a second lifting process with a smaller lift (15–25 mm) because: (i) Reference 2 teaches a second tamping pass B performed subsequent to the first pass to finalize geometry, (ii) Reference 1 teaches stabilization after tamping and indicates consolidation/settlement effects that must be accounted for to achieve durable track geometry, and (iii) Reference 3 teaches a lifting/lining unit used in conjunction with tamping to correct track position. Selecting a finishing lift range such as 15–25 mm represents routine optimization to provide sufficient correction margin while minimizing ballast disturbance, which would have been within ordinary skill absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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 References 1-3
Claim 16 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 16 narrows the second lift range to 20–25 mm.
The same teachings applied to claim 15 apply here: the applied art teaches first lift with tamping (References 1-3), subsequent finishing tamping (Reference 2 second pass B), and stabilization-driven settlement considerations (Reference 1), which together would have suggested selecting a smaller finishing lift within a workable subset such as 20–25 mm.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 16
It would have been obvious to select the narrower finishing lift range (20–25 mm) as an obvious sub-range within the broader routine finishing lift range used for final geometry correction, representing ordinary optimization to balance adequate correction allowance with reduced ballast loosening, particularly in view of Reference 1’s required stabilization after tamping and Reference 2’s finishing tamping pass concept.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 13, which further comprises: after the first lifting process, carrying out the first tamping process in a first depth layer of the ballast bed with vibrating and squeezing tamping tines of the deep tamping unit; and carrying out the second tamping process in a second depth layer of the ballast bed being higher than the first depth later with the tamping tines.
Claim 17 — Rejected over References 1-3
Claim 17 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 17 adds two related limitations:
(A) “after the first lifting process, carrying out the first tamping process in a first depth layer of the ballast bed with vibrating and squeezing tamping tines of the deep tamping unit”
Reference 2 expressly teaches tamping tools 21 with tamping tines 20, which may be set vibrating by vibration drive 23 and squeezed together by squeeze drives 24 to perform tamping, and teaches vertical adjustment of tamping units 18, 19 by drives 25 (tools 21; tines 20; vibration drive 23; squeeze drives 24; vertical adjustment drives 25). This corresponds directly to “vibrating and squeezing tamping tines.”
Reference 1 teaches a tamping unit 11 used with track lifting unit 10 within a layered ballast formation context (units 10, 11; layers 29, 30). As applied/modified per claim 9, tamping unit 11 is configured/operated as a deep tamping unit using the vertically adjustable vibrating/squeezing tine arrangement taught by Reference 2.
Using the vertical adjustment (Reference 2 drives 25), the first tamping process may be performed at a deeper immersion depth corresponding to a “first depth layer” (lower layer region) of the ballast bed.
(B) “carrying out the second tamping process in a second depth layer of the ballast bed being higher than the first depth later with the tamping tines”
Reference 2 teaches a second tamping pass B performed subsequently to first pass A, with target position unchanged (pass B). Using the same tamping tools/tines (20, 21) and vertical adjustment (25), the skilled artisan would perform the finishing tamping (second tamping process) at a shallower immersion depth (a “higher” depth layer) than the deep first tamping process, consistent with finishing tamping being directed to the upper region beneath sleepers to finalize geometry.
Accordingly, Reference 2 supplies the vibrating/squeezing tine structure and the two-pass concept, and the vertical adjustability supplies the ability to select different depth layers (deeper for the first tamping, shallower/higher for the second).
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 17
It would have been obvious to perform the first tamping at a deeper immersion depth and the second tamping at a shallower immersion depth using the same vibrating/squeezing tines because Reference 1 emphasizes the need for homogeneous compaction reaching deeper layers after layered ballast introduction, while Reference 2 provides vertically adjustable tamping units with vibrating and squeezing tines and explicitly teaches a second tamping pass following a first tamping pass to achieve accurate and durable geometry.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 15, which further comprises carrying out the tamping process after the second lifting process by using a multi-sleeper tamping unit.
Claim 18 — Rejected over References 1-3
Claim 18 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 18 adds: using “a multi-sleeper tamping unit” for the tamping process after the second lifting process.
Reference 2 explicitly teaches multiple tamping units 18 and 19, each designed as a two-sleeper tamping unit for simultaneously tamping two immediately adjacent sleepers 22, and further teaches group tamping of sleeper groups (x, y) such that four sleepers 22 are tamped simultaneously in the first tamping pass A (multiple tamping units 18, 19; sleepers 22; simultaneous tamping of multiple sleepers; first tamping pass A).
Reference 1 teaches cyclical tamping possible during continuous forward travel in the working direction 9 using tamping unit 11 with track lifting unit 10 (units 10, 11; working direction 9; cyclical tamping). Reference 3 also teaches cyclic displacement and operation of track lifting and lining unit 54 in common with tamping unit 53 from tie to tie during continuous advance (units 54, 53).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to employ a multi-sleeper tamping unit (Reference 2’s units 18, 19) for the tamping operation performed after a lifting process (including a second lifting process), to increase working speed and tamping output in the finishing stage.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 18
It would have been obvious to use a multi-sleeper tamping unit for the tamping operation after the second lifting process because Reference 2 teaches multi-sleeper tamping units (18, 19) to achieve high tamping output and durable geometry, and References 1 and 3 teach continuous working advance with cyclic tamping operations in a train-based maintenance context. Substituting or configuring the tamping unit used in the finishing stage to be multi-sleeper provides predictable throughput improvement without changing the fundamental tamping/stabilization principles.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
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 References 1-3
Claim 19 Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis
Claim 19 adds: 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, and teaches a variant where the front frame part 23 of machine 1 is connected to the cleaning machine 4 (train formation: machine 1 + cleaning machine 4; working direction 9; variant: front frame part 23 connected to cleaning machine 4). Machine 1 includes a track lifting and tamping unit 10, 11 (tamping unit 11 integrated within the train formation with cleaning machine 4). This constitutes a tamping machine integrated into a cleaning train.
Reference 3 likewise teaches a mobile ballast cleaning apparatus with multiple coupled work vehicles and a tamping unit carried on a work vehicle in the same mobile apparatus (third work vehicle carrying tamping unit 53 and track lifting/lining unit 54; continuous advance in operating direction 17), consistent with tamping integrated into the cleaning apparatus/train.
Motivation to Combine/Modify — Claim 19
It would have been obvious to carry out tamping work with a tamping machine integrated into a cleaning train because Reference 1 expressly teaches integration/association of tamping (unit 11) with a cleaning machine 4 in a train formation traveling continuously in the working direction 9, and Reference 3 similarly teaches tamping units carried within a mobile ballast cleaning apparatus.
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