DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are currently pending. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are maintained in rejection despite Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed 6/10/2026. Claims 14 and 15 are again indicated as having allowable subject matter. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 12, the “and” should be deleted in order to keep punctation consistent, as the following limitation is not the last limitation of the method.
In claim 1, line 16, a comma should be inserted after the word “point” in order to keep punctation consistent.
In claim 1, line 18, the use of “stabilizer;” should be replaced with “stabilizer, and” in order to keep punctation consistent.
In claim 1, line 20, a period needs to be inserted at the end of the claim.
In claim 9, line 3, a comma should replace the semicolon after “system” in order to keep punctation consistent.
In claim 9, line 15, the period after “stabilized” needs to be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 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.
In claim 1, line 11, the use of the phrase “outside a sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit” is deemed indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the meets and bounds of this terminology, i.e., it is unclear where the end of the sphere of influence would be defined. The term “sphere of influence” is not well defined within the art, and the Specification provides little direction.
In claim 9, lines 15-16, the use of the phrase “outside of the sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit” is deemed indefinite, similar to claim 1 above, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the meets and bounds of this terminology, i.e., it is unclear where the end of the sphere of influence would be defined.
Claims 2-6, 8 and 10-14 are additionally rejected as indefinite based on the dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auer (US 2019/0316300 A1) (“Auer ‘300”).
Referring to Claim 1: Auer ‘300 discloses a method for correcting vertical position defects of a track (2) after a lifting-tamping process, comprising the steps of:
stabilizing the track using a dynamic track stabilizer (6) in which a stabilizing unit (16) acts on the track at a forward-moving working point (at 16) in a working direction (4) (Fig. 1),
recording a set of track position data of the untreated track (I) being recorded before the lifting-tamping process (Para. [0030]), and with track position data of the tamped track (U) being recorded after the lifting-tamping process at a measuring point (at middle measuring axle 14) located in front of the stabilizing unit (16) in the working direction (4) (Para. [0027]) (Fig. 1),
wherein additional track position data of the stabilized lowered track (4) (Para. [0001]) are recorded outside a sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit at a post-measuring point (at 18) located behind the stabilizing unit (16) in the working direction (4) (Para. [0028]) (Fig. 1), and
actuating the dynamic track stabilizer (6) during the stabilizing process as a function of track position data (I, U) of the untreated (I) and the tamped track (U) at the working point (at 16) and of track position data (R) of the stabilized track at the post-measuring point (at 18) (Para. [0030-0031]) (Fig. 2)
carrying a track position measuring system (14, 15, 17, 18) comprising a plurality of measuring devices along with the dynamic track stabilizer (6) (Para. [0027-0028]);
recording the corresponding track position with respect to a common reference system (15) at the respective measuring point (at 14, 18) by means of the assigned measuring devices (14, 18) (Para. [0027-0028])
Referring to Claim 2: Auer ‘300 discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein track position data of a target position (S) of the track (2) are predefined, and that the dynamic track stabilizer (6) is additionally actuated during the stabilizing process as a function of correction data (f) which are derived for the working point (at 16) from the data of the target position (S) and the track position data of the untreated track (I) (Para. [0030-0031]) (Fig. 2).
Referring to Claim 3: Auer ‘300 discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein one of the claims 1 to 2, a longitudinal gradient or longitudinal level and a crossfall or superelevation of the track (2) are each measured at the respective measuring point (14, 18) to record the track position data (Para. [0009]).
Referring to Claim 4: Auer ‘300 discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the following operating parameters (u) of the dynamic track stabilizer (6) is changed during the stabilizing process as a function of the recorded track position data:
- a vibration frequency,
- a travelling speed (vdgs),
- an imposed load acting on a left rail (aldgs),
- an imposed load acting on a right rail (ardgs),
- a total imposed load (u) (Para. [0002-0004], [0008] and [0030]).
Referring to Claim 5: Auer ‘300 discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the stabilizing process is started with an output value (u) of the respective operating parameter, and that an adjusted value is continuously calculated (Para. [0008] and [0015]) for the respective operating parameter during the stabilizing process by means of an algorithm set up in a computing unit (21) (Para. [0040-0041]).
Referring to Claim 6: Auer ‘300 discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein weighting factors (c) are stored in the algorithm for the respective operating parameter (u), and that the weighting factors (c) are continuously adjusted (Para. [0015]) by means of a control (13) (Para. [0040-0041]).
Referring to Claim 9: Auer ‘300 discloses a system for carrying out a method according to claim 1, the system comprising:
a track position measuring system (15);
a dynamic track stabilizer (6) for correcting vertical position defects at a forward-moving working point (at 16) of a track (2),
wherein the track position measuring system (15) is set up to record the track position at a measuring point (at middle measuring axle 14) arranged in front of the dynamic track stabilizer (6) in the working direction (4) and at a post-measuring point (18) arranged after the dynamic track stabilizer (6) in the working direction (4) (Fig. 1),
wherein the dynamic track stabilizer (6) comprises a control device (13) which records track position data fed from the track position measuring system (5) (Para. [0027]), and
wherein the control device (13) is set up to actuate the dynamic track stabilizer (6) as a function of track position data assigned to the working point (at 16) of track position data of the stabilized, lowered track assigned to the post-measuring point (18) outside of the sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit (Fig. 1) (Para. [0027-0028]).
Referring to Claim 13: Auer ‘300 discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein a tamping machine (5) is arranged immediately in front of the track stabilizer (6) in the working direction (4), and that the track position measuring system (15) comprises at least one measuring device (14) which is assigned to the tamping machine (5) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0026-0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer ‘300 in view of Lichtberger (US 9,518,845).
Referring to Claim 8: Auer ‘300 does not specifically teach that the reference system is formed by camera and reference marks. However, Lichtberger teaches a device for surveying tracks, wherein the reference system is formed by means of a camera (16,17) attached to one of the measuring devices and a reference mark (14, 20) attached to another measuring device (15, 21) and positioned in a recording area (18, 19) of the camera (Figs. 1-4), and that measuring marks attached to the remaining measuring devices are recorded by means of the camera in order to record the track position data (Col. 4, lines 47-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Auer ‘300 to form the reference system using a camera and reference marks, as taught by Lichtberger, in order to accurately measure tracks for track laying machines with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Auer ‘300 does not specifically teach that a distance (a) between the working point (at 16) and the post-measuring point (18) lies in a range between 3 m and 10 m, particularly between 5 m and 8 m. However, Lichtberger teaches a device for surveying tracks, wherein “[t]he outer position measurement carriages, which are embodied as track-traveling, are located at the distances a and b from the camera measurement carriage. Typically, a has a length between 4 and 6 m and b has a length between 8 and 12 m.” (Col. 5, lines 11-15) (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Auer ‘300 to form the reference system using a working point and a post-measuring point lying in a range between 3 m and 10 m, similar to the range taught by Lichtberger, in order to optimize the camera angles and distances, and thereby, accurately measure tracks for track laying machines with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 11: Auer ‘300 further teaches the system, wherein the control device (13) comprises a computing unit (21) in which an algorithm is implemented for recalculating at least one operating parameter (Para. [0040-0041]) of the dynamic track stabilizer (6) on the basis of continuously updated (Para. [0015]) track position data (Para. [0027-0028]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer ‘300 in view of Plasser et al. (US 3,469,534)
Referring to Claim 12: Auer ‘300 teaches a stabilizing unit (16) that imposes a vertical load and vibrates (Para. [0028]), but does not specifically teach a vibration generator and roller clamps that can be clamped onto rails of the track and is supported against a machine frame with imposed load drives that can be actuated separately. However, Plasser teaches a mobile track liner and tamper, comprising a stabilizing unit (2) comprising a vibration generator and roller clamps that can be clamped onto rails of the track (5) and is supported against a machine frame (1) with imposed load drives that can be actuated separately (Col. 2, lines 47-55) (Figs. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Auer ‘300 to impose loading and vibration using a vibration generator and roller clamps, as taught by Plasser, in order to stabilize each rail individually, using components commonly known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC § 112, but otherwise would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if all indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC § 112 are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14 and depending claim 15, the prior art, including Auer ‘300 in view of Lichtberger, fails to teach that “a camera is attached to a first measuring device, that a reference mark is attached to a second measuring device, and that at least one further measuring device with a measuring mark is attached between the first and second measuring device,” as recited in claim 14. Lichtberger teaches a camera attached to the middle measuring device (Figs. 3, 4 and 6), rather than the orientation claimed. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Auer ‘300 in view of Lichtberger to satisfy the claimed orientation of the camera, measuring devices and measuring mark.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Auer ‘300 does not disclose a measuring system for detecting track position data of the tamped track after the lifting and tamping operation at a measuring point located in the working direction, ahead of the stabilization unit. Examiner responds that the recording by measuring axles 14 of Auer ‘300 satisfy the limitation of track position data of the tamped track being recorded after the lifting-tamping process (via 9 and 7, respectively) at a measuring point (at 14) located in front of the stabilizing unit (16) in the working direction (4) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0027-0028]).
Applicant argues that Auer ‘300 does not teach controlling the track stabilizer as a function of track position data including the lowered track at the post measurement point outside the sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit because only modified control of the track-lifting unit 9 is implemented. Examiner responds that the phrase “outside a sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit” is deemed indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the meets and bounds of this terminology, i.e., it is unclear where the end of the sphere of influence would be defined. Further, measuring axles 18 measure a final track position R and may be reasonably interpreted as “outside a sphere of influence of the stabilizing unit” since measuring axles 18 are located at the terminal end of the dynamic track stabilizer 6 railcar at a distance from the stabilizing units 16 (Para. [0028]) (Fig. 1). Further, “the resulting final track position R are fed to the evaluation device 21 in order to determine from this in real time the overlift value.” (Para. [0041]). Thus, Auer ‘300 reasonably teaches the amended limitations.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would continue to use the post-measurement system results of Auer ‘300 to adjust the control of the track stabilization unit to minimize short-wavelength track geometry errors. Examiner responds that Applicant is making arguments more specific than what is recited in the claims. The claims fail to recite any limitations regarding wavelength geometry errors.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights