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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NL2034437, filed on 03/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (EP 2990296 A1, provided) and Kugler et al. (US 3396270 A).
Regarding claim 1, Van teaches (Fig. 1-5): Self-detecting shunt bar (20) for creating a short-circuit bridge between or across two rails (2a, 2b) of a section of a railway track (para. 0010; Fig. 1-2), comprising: - a first connection (5a) which is configured to be brought into electrical contact with a first of the two rails (2a)(Fig. 1); - a second connection (5b) which is configured to be brought into electrical contact with a second of the two rails (2b)(Fig. 1); - a signal generator for providing a test signal (occupancy indication) across the short-circuit bridge (Claims 1 and 7); - a detection device (monitoring module 25) which is configured to measure and monitor a short-circuit resistance of the short-circuit bridge created, during operation, by measuring the test signal (an occupancy indication that simulates a train in a zone is measured by the monitoring module 25; para. 0009 and 0061); and signaling means (communication means) which are configured to signal the measured short-circuit resistance to a user of the shunt bar (para. 0041 and 0042).
Van further teaches: the shunt bar system is connected to at least one power source of the train safety system in addition to an auxiliary power source or emergency power source such as a battery (para. 0043-0044), but does not teach that the shunt bar is integrated into a railway switch, and the electrical power source, the detection device and the signaling means are connected to, and energized by, a power supply of a motor of a switch actuator of the railway switch.
However, Kugler teaches an alternate signal indication shunt, wherein (Fig. 1-3): shunt indication contacts (29, 30) are integrated into a railway switch actuator (switch machine B)(Fig. 2) to be energized by a power supply motor (col. 5, line 75 – col. 6, line 6; col. 6, line 72 – col. 7, line 1; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Van to integrate the shunt bar system into a railway switch to be powered by the motor of the switch actuator, as disclosed by Kugler, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a reliable, consistent power input to the shunt bar and its powered system, in a way that seamlessly synchronizes with standard switch operations without requiring additional remote communication or control wiring.
Regarding claim 2, Van does not explicitly teach that the shunt bar is permanently integrated with the railway switch and in particular wherein the first and second connection are permanently integrated with the railway switch.
However, Kugler teaches an alternate signal indication shunt, wherein (Fig. 1-3): shunt indication contacts (29, 30) are integrated into a railway switch actuator (switch machine B)(Fig. 2) to be energized by a power supply motor (col. 5, line 75 – col. 6, line 6; col. 6, line 72 – col. 7, line 1; Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Van to permanently integrate a shunt bar system into a railway switch by connecting the first and second connections of the shunt bar to the switch actuator, as disclosed by Kugler, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a reliable, consistent power input to the shunt bar and its signaling means, in a way that seamlessly synchronizes with standard switch operations without requiring additional remote communication or control wiring.
Regarding claim 3, Van does not explicitly teach that the shunt bar is completely integrated with the railway switch and in particular wherein the first and second connection are permanently integrated with the railway switch.
However, Kugler teaches an alternate signal indication shunt, wherein (Fig. 1-3): shunt indication contacts (29, 30) are completely integrated into a railway switch actuator (switch machine B)(Fig. 2) to be energized by a power supply motor (col. 5, line 75 – col. 6, line 6; col. 6, line 72 – col. 7, line 1; Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Van to completely integrate a shunt bar system into a railway switch by connecting the first and second connections of the shunt bar to the switch actuator, as disclosed by Kugler, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a single manufactured product that has a reliable, consistent power input to the shunt bar and its signaling means at a railroad track switch.
Regarding claim 4, Van further teaches (Fig. 1a-1b): the first and second connection (5a, 5b) are permanently integrated into one or more railway sleepers between the two rails of the railway switch (para. 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Van further teaches (Fig. 1a-1b and 2): the first and second connection (5a, 5b) and a shunt bar (20) designed as a first and second arm (two arm members 21a, 21b) which are pivotable with respect to one another (hinged together by hinge 22)(Fig. 2) and which first and second connection (two contact parts 23a-23b) are preferably each provided with two or more arm parts (arm contacts and fixing part) in order to be brought into electrical contact with a first or respectively second rail (2a, 2b) separately in parallel with one another (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Van further teaches (Fig. 1a-1b): the shunt bar (20) further comprises a communication device (communication module 24) for communicating the status of the shunt bar to a central processing unit (para. 0063).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (EP 2990296 A1, provided), Kugler et al. (US 3396270 A), and Schmidt (US 20230143765 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Van further teaches (Fig. 1a-1b): the first and second connections (5a, 5b), but does not explicitly teach that the first and second connections are designed as flexible first and second connections and in particular as cables, which flexible first and second connection are preferably each provided with two or more connection terminals in order to be brought into electrical contact with a first or respectively second rail separately in parallel with one another.
However, Schmidt teaches an alternate railway shunt, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a shunt (200) comprises a pair of wire connections (240) attached to the first rail terminals (224) and the second rail terminals (234), wherein the wire connections (240) are attached in parallel with the rail terminals (223, 234).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Van to design the shunt electrical connections as flexible cables to be brought into connection with parallel rails, as disclosed by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success because flexible cables offer superior mechanical durability by not being prone to cracking or loosening under heavy vibration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach the electrical power source of the shunt bar comprises a converter for converting the supply voltage of the power supply of the motor of the railway switch to a power supply which is required for the shunt bar. While Van further teaches: the shunt bar system is connected to at least one power source of the train safety system in addition to an auxiliary power source or emergency power source such as a battery (para. 0043-0044); and the secondary reference Kugler teaches (Fig. 1-3): shunt indication contacts (29, 30) are integrated into a railway switch actuator (switch machine B)(Fig. 2) to be energized by a power supply motor (col. 5, line 75 – col. 6, line 6; col. 6, line 72 – col. 7, line 1; Fig. 2), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the combination of Van and Kugler to have a converter for converting the supply voltage of the power supply of the motor of the railway switch to a power supply which is required for the shunt bar. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to teach the signaling means comprise one or more auditory and visual signaling means and are accommodated in a housing of the shunt bar in order to signal to the user of the shunt bar by auditory and/or visual means a deviation between the measured short-circuit resistance and a preset threshold value for the short-circuit resistance. While Van further teaches (Fig. 1a-1b and 3): the signaling means comprise one or more visual signaling means (light signals; claim 8) and are accommodated in a housing of the shunt bar (20)(Claim 2), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the signaling means to signal to the user of the shunt bar by auditory and/or visual means a deviation between the measured short-circuit resistance and a preset threshold value for the short-circuit resistance. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach the shunt bar further comprises a control unit for comparing the measured short-circuit resistance with a reference value and wherein the signaling means only signal the measured short- circuit resistance if the measured short-circuit resistance exceeds the reference value by a predetermined threshold. While Van further teaches (Fig. 1a-1b and 3): the shunt bar (20) further comprises a control unit (control means; claim 1), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Van such that the control unit compares the measured short-circuit resistance with a reference value and wherein the signaling means only signal the measured short- circuit resistance if the measured short-circuit resistance exceeds the reference value by a predetermined threshold. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of railway short-circuit bridge detection devices with a power supply: US-0839365-A, US-1511253-A, US-3004151-A, US-9102341-B2, US-9862395-B2, US-20210001901-A1, GB-2155225-A, GB-2418051-A, KR-100873322-B1, EP-2206635-A1, EP-1935747-B1, EP-2821312-A1, KR-2499319-B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights