DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 04/23/2024 and Applicant’s arguments on 08/27/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 04/24/2023 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/23/2024 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/27/2026, to claims 1-9 have been fully considered.
Claims 10-12 have been added.
With respect to the rejections of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-9 under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 05/27/2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument regarding the claimed “mounting section configured to be mounted on the travel surface” has been found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection has been modified. Please see the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Xu (CN 215590738) in view of Harmon (US 1,617,248), and further in view of Koelsche (WO 2015/155420).
Regarding claim 1, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A travel restricting device configured to restrict traveling of a transport vehicle configured to travel along a travel rail in a transport facility that includes the transport vehicle and the travel rail, Xu, Paras. [0001]-[0007], Figs. 1-2, states “... a special stopping device for mine cars …” (i.e., a travel restriction device) configured to restrict the traveling of a mine car (i.e., a transport vehicle), configured to travel along “narrow-gauge railway vehicles” (i.e., a travel rail).
the transport vehicle comprising a wheel configured to roll on a travel surface of the travel rail, Xu, Paras. [0001]-[0007], [0024], teaches the transport vehicle comprising a wheel configured to roll on the travel rail, stating “… the mine wheels enter from the cone shape at the left end, and the block 140 blocks them, causing the mine car to stop”.
a drive device configured to drive the wheel, and a bumper configured to cause the drive device to undergo an emergency stop in response to a collision with an obstacle, Koelsche, Paras. [0024]-[0025], [0031]-[0035], [0052]-[0053], Fig. 2, states “a single beam that can move around an axis of rotation upon impact with an obstacle or rail”, “An obstacle and/or derailment detection device 10 is fixed in front of a bogie chassis 6 …”, “Beam 20 has a profile adapted to intercept a collision with an obstacle or rail”, teaches a railway transport vehicle comprising a beam 20 (i.e., a bumper), configured to intercept a collision with an obstacle. And further teaches that the collision causes an onboard control unit 24 to halt the drive device, stating: “… if the received detection signals correspond to an impact requiring emergency braking, a corresponding command order is sent to the braking unit 11 to trigger emergency braking” (i.e., an emergency stop).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the automated emergency stop bumper system as taught by Koelsche into the rail vehicle of Xu to safely halt the vehicle drive unit upon colliding with an obstacle, in order to prevent damage to the vehicle.
the travel restricting device comprising: a mounting section configured to be mounted on the travel surface; Xu, Paras. [0007], [0022], states: “… a car-concealing base is fixedly disposed on the car-concealing device body,…”, and operates by placing the base on the rail surface where “the car-covering plate 120 acts to allow the mine car wheels to drive in, …”.
a standing section configured to be fixed to the mounting section and extend upward beyond the travel surface, and wherein: a travel direction is a direction along the travel rail, a distancing side in the travel direction is a side corresponding to movement away from the wheel in the travel direction, an approaching side in the travel direction is a side corresponding to movement toward the wheel in the travel direction, the standing section comprises a facing section configured to be arranged at a position facing the bumper from the distancing side in the travel direction while the mounting section is mounted on the travel surface, Xu teaches a block 140 (i.e., an upward extending block), which is configured to strike the vehicle’s wheel.
However, Harmon, Page 2, ll. 12-25, ll. 65-75, Page 3, ll. 25-35, Fig. 2, teaches a travel restricting track-stop comprising bumper member 21 (i.e., a standing section) extending upward beyond the travel surface and configured to be arranged at a position facing a transport vehicle’s bumper from the distancing side in the travel direction, stating that the structure is raised by springs 23 “into position to contact with Bumper C’ of the first or entering car” and relies on the “contact of the Bumper C’ of the car with the members 21”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stopping block of Xu by extending it upward to form a standing section facing the vehicle bumper as taught by Harmon, in order to prevent axle breakage/damage during deceleration.
the mounting section comprises an underlay section configured to be positioned relative to the facing section in such a manner that the underlay section is pressed under the wheel Xu, Paras. [0022]-[0026], teaches the mounting section comprises car shelter plate 120/ car-covering plate 130 (i.e., an underlay section) positioned that the mine car wheels enter and drive onto it, using the vehicle’s weight as a bottom support to offset the impact force (i.e., … is pressed under the wheel). while the bumper is in contact with the facing section. By modifying Xu with the upward extending bumper strike plate of Harmon, result is a mounting section comprising an underlay section that is pressed under the wheel while the upward standing section is in contact with the vehicle’s bumper.
Regarding claim 2, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein: the facing section comprises a facing surface configured to face the bumper, Harmon, Fig. 2, teaches the standing section (bumper members 21) comprising a facing surface configured to face the bumper, illustrates the front vertical face of member 21 directly opposing the vehicle bumper (C’), the underlay section comprises a leading end portion on the approaching side in the travel direction, Xu, Para. [0024], teaches the underlay section (car shelter plate 120/ car-covering plate 130) comprises a leading end portion on the approaching side, stating: “the mine car wheels enter from the cone shape at the left end” (i.e., the leading edge where the wheel first makes contact), and the facing surface and the leading end portion are spaced apart from each other in the travel direction by a distance set in such a manner that, while (i) the underlay section is not pressed under the wheel and (ii) the leading end portion is in contact with an outer circumferential surface of the wheel, the facing surface and the bumper are in contact with each other, or the facing surface and the bumper face each other across a gap. Harmon, Fig. 2, illustrates the spatial relationship between the transport vehicle’s forwardmost wheel and its front bumper (C’), showing that the bumper overhangs forward of the wheel. When modifying the track mounted base plate of Xu to include the bumper facing standing section 21 of Harmon as discussed in claim 1, the device must be proportioned to accommodate the physical dimensions of the vehicle it is receiving. Since Harmon in Fig. 2 teaches that the bumper C’ projects forward of the front wheels, configuring the leading edge of Xu’s base plate to receive the wheel exactly as Harmon’s standing section 21 receives the bumper C’, where results in the facing surface and the leading end portion being spaced apart by a distance matching the vehicle’s overhang.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to proportion the distance between the leading edge of the underlay section and the facing surface of the Xu-Harmon combination, to correspond to the distance between the wheel and bumper of the transport vehicle being arrested as shown in Fig. 2 of Harmon, in order to ensure that the wheel engages the base plate at the precise moment the bumper engages the standing section properly.
Regarding claim 3, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein: the facing section comprises a facing surface configured to face the bumper, Harmon, Fig. 2, teaches the standing section (bumper members 21) comprising a facing surface configured to face the bumper, illustrating the front vertical face of member 21 opposing the vehicle bumper. the underlay section comprises a leading end portion on the approaching side in the travel direction, Xu, Pars. [0024], and Figs. 1-2, teaches the underlay section (car shelter plate 120/car-covering plate 130) comprising a leading end portion on the approaching side, stating: “the mine car wheels enter from the cone shape at the left end” (i.e., the leading edge where ….). and the facing surface and the leading end portion are spaced apart from each other in the travel direction by a distance less than or equal to a distance between an axis of the wheel and an end portion of the bumper on the distancing side in the travel direction. Harmon, Fig. 2, explicitly illustrates the physical relationship between the transport vehicle’s front wheels and its front bumper, showing that the bumper extending forward of the wheels. When modifying the track mounted plate of XU to include the bumper-facing standing section of Harmon, the spacing between the leading edge of the base plate and the upright stopping post must be configured to correspond to the dimension of the vehicle it’s receiving. Configuring the spacing to be less than or equal to the vehicle’s wheel axis to bumper distance ensures that the wheel has rolled fully onto the base plate (at least up to its central axis) before or exactly when the bumper strikes the stopping post.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein: the facing section comprises: a fixed facing member fixed to the mounting section; Xu teaches a stopping block 140, fixed to the base 110, and Harmon teaches modifying it into an upright facing section as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
and a detachable facing member configured to be detachably attached to the mounting section on the approaching side of the fixed facing member in the travel direction, the detachable facing member comprises a facing surface configured to face the bumper from the distancing side in the travel direction, and the fixed facing member comprises an auxiliary facing surface configured to face the bumper from the distancing side in the travel direction while the detachable facing member is not attached. Xu-Harmon combination teaches an upright facing section, except for the details of splitting this facing section into a primary detachable member and a secondary fixed auxiliary member.
However, as established by patent law regarding “Making Separable”, making a unitary structure into separable or detachable parts is an obvious modification when considered desirable for any reason, such as obtaining access or replaceability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upright facing section of the combined Xu-Harmon by making the front striking surface separable from the fixed structural base, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C), holding that making a cap removable would be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche discloses:
The travel restricting device according to claim 4, wherein the detachable facing member is wider than the travel rail in a width direction orthogonal to the travel direction in a vertical view. Xu-Harmon combination teaches modifying the upright facing section into a fixed base and a detachable front facing member, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4. Harmon, Page.1, ll. 26-30, Figs. 1, 4, explicitly define a “plan view” (i.e., a vertical view), and illustrates the travel rails (a) and the track stop assembly mounted between them, including the upright bumper members 21 which serves as the facing section. And further illustrates a cross-sectional view showing the substantial physical thickness and width of the bumper members 21. Harmon explicitly teaches that the purpose of the bumper members 21 is to contact the vehicle bumper to absorb heavy shocks and ensure “the axles of the car are not subjected to any jars or strains”, and therefore eliminating the “danger of breakage” when cars are heavy loaded.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the detachable facing member of the Xu-Harmon combination to be wider than the travel rail in a width direction orthogonal to the travel direction, in order to provide wide surface to safely distribute the immense impact of a heavy loaded vehicle across its bumper.
Regarding claim 7, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche discloses:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein the underlay section further comprises: a plate-shaped section shaped as a plate extending along the travel surface; Xu, Paras. [0022]-[0024], Figs. 1-2, teaches that the underlay section (plate 120 supported by base 110) forms a plate-shaped section that extends longitudinally along the rail (i.e., the travel surface).
and a tapered section on the approaching side of the plate-shaped section in the travel direction and having an upper surface extending downward toward the approaching side in the travel direction. Xu, Paras. [0022]-[0024], sates: “the mine car wheels enter from the cone shape at the left end”. This cone shape at the left entry end of plate 120 constitutes a tapered section having an upper surface extending downward toward the approaching side to allow the wheel to smoothly enter.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein: the facing section further comprises an inclined upper surface inclined obliquely upward toward the distancing side in the travel direction, Xu, Paras. [0022]-[0027], and Figs. 1-2, teaches that the facing section (block 140) comprises an inclined upper surface. The front surface of block 140 is depicted as starting lower where it meets plate 120, and inclining obliquely upward toward the distancing side in the travel direction.
the transport vehicle further comprises a wheel support member supporting the wheel, Harmon, teaches a transport vehicle (C) comprising wheels and axles supporting the wheels. And Koelsche, Pars. [0030]-[0035], teaches a transport vehicle comprising a “bogie” (wheel support).
the facing section is arranged in such a manner that an end portion of the inclined upper surface on the approaching side in the travel direction is lower than a lower end portion of the wheel support member on the distancing side in the travel direction, and the facing section is arranged such that an end portion of the inclined upper surface on the distancing side in the travel direction is higher than the lower end portion of the wheel support member. Harmon, Figs. 1-2, illustrates the vertical relationship between the transport vehicle’s wheel support members (axles, undercarriage), and its front bumper C’. the bumper is located at a vertical position higher than the lower end of the vehicle’s wheel support members. The facing section (bumper members 21) is near the track level, which is lower than the wheel support, and extending upward to intercept the bumper.
Xu in view of Harmon, and Koelsche discloses the claimed invention except for the specific vertical height arranged of the inclined upper surface relative to the lowered portion of the vehicle’s wheel support member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the vertical height of the modified inclined block so its upper ends extends higher than the lower end portion of the wheels support member, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein:
the facing section comprises a facing surface configured to face the bumper, Harmon, Figs. 1-2, teaches the facing section (bumper members 21) comprising a facing surface configured to face the bumper C’.
the mounting section comprises an upper surface provided with a reference mark indicating a reference for an installation position of the mounting section relative to the bumper, and the reference mark is arranged at a position spaced apart from the facing surface by an allowable travel distance that is an upper limit of a distance the transport vehicle is allowed to travel. Xu, Paras. [0022]-[0027], teaches a mounting section including plate 120, that possesses an upper surface, but the combination of the references does not disclose a “reference mark” on the upper surface at a specific distance from the stopping block to indicate allowable travel distance.
However, providing visual alignment indicators or installation marks on mechanical Hardware is a known and standard engineering practice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reference mark on the upper surface of the mounting section of the combined Xu-Harmon device, arranged at a position spaced apart from the facing surface corresponding to the vehicle’s allowable travel distance, to provide a visual indicator for the operator installing the device, in order to improve user operation.
Regarding claim 10, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu discloses:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein: the travel restricting device is detachably attached to the travel rail. Xu, Para. [0027], teaches that the body 100 is designed to be a portable stopping mechanism rather than permanent, stating: “By operating the handle 150, the car-covering device body 100 is placed in front of the mine car”, which is detachable by the handle.
Regarding claim 11, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 1, wherein: the facing section comprises: a fixed facing member fixed to the mounting section; Xu, [0001]-[0007], Figs. 1-2, teaches a stopping block 140 fixed to the base 110. And Harmon, Figs. 1-2, teaches modifying Xu into an upright facing section (bumper members 21) fixed to the mounting structure. therefore, the combination teaches a fixed facing member fixed to the mounting section.
and a detachable facing member not fixed to the mounting section and configured to be detachable attached to the fixed facing member on the approaching side of the fixed facing member in the travel direction, and the detachable facing member comprises a facing surface configured to face the bumper from the distancing side in the travel direction. The combination of Xu-Harmon teaches an upright facing section to endure heavy impacts from transport vehicles, but do not explicitly detail splitting the facing section into a fixed rear support and a front detachable member attached to the rear support.
However, as established by patent law regarding “Making Separable”, making a unitary structure into separable or detachable parts is an obvious modification when considered desirable for any reason, such as obtaining access or replaceability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upright facing section of the combined Xu-Harmon by making the front striking surface separable from the fixed structural base, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C), holding that making a cap removable would be obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Xu-Harmon and Koelsche disclose:
The travel restricting device according to claim 11, wherein: the detachable facing member is wider than the travel rail and the fixed facing member in the width direction in a vertical view. As discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 11, the combination teaches modifying the upright facing section into a fixed backing member and a detachable front facing member. Harmon, Figs. 1-2, teaches a “plan view”, and illustrates the bumper members 21 as wider than the travel rail a.
Xu in view of Harmon, and Koelsche discloses the claimed invention except for the specific width of the detachable facing member compared to the fixed facing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the detachable facing member to be wider than the fixed facing member, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Xu (CN 215590738) in view of Harmon (US 1,617,248), and further in view of Koelsche (WO 2015/155420), and Wenrich (US 1,216,639).
Regarding claim 6, Xu in view of Harmon, and further in view of Koelsche disclose the limitations of claim 1. Xu-Harmon-Koelsche and Wenrich discloses:
The travel restricting device according to The travel restricting device according to wherein the mounting section further comprises a pair of guide sections configured to be arranged outward of the travel rail on opposite sides in a width direction orthogonal to the travel direction in a vertical view, and wherein each of the guide sections comprises a guide surface configured to face a corresponding side surface of the travel rail. Wenrich, Page. 1, ll. 55-70, 92-100, and Figs. 3-4, teaches a rail mounted travel restricting appliance comprising a mounting base that includes a pair of guide sections (the downward extending flanges 12, 20, 21 shown in Figs. 3-4) configured to be arranged outward of the travel rail on opposite sides in a width direction, where each guide section comprises an inner surface configured to face a corresponding side surface of the travel rail head to secure the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mounting section of the Xu-Harmon-Koelsche combination to include the pair of downward extending lateral guide sections as taught by Wenrich, in order to secure the mounting base to the rail head, preventing it from slipping away.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Ion (US 2019/0329994) teaches a wheel chock with magnetic lock.
Anderson (US 2012/0087758) teaches a vehicle wheel chock, and a system for an auto-rack railroad car to secure the vehicle in the railroad.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights