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 .
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.
Claim 8 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.
Regarding claim 8 the limitation “at most 20 degrees, in particular at most 10 degrees” is unclear because the limitation of the claim is not made clear to be either 20 or 10 degrees. Amending the claim to positively affirm which angle is claimed and to remove mention of the unclaimed angle would overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, & 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theurer (EP 0208826 A1, when paragraph numbers are referred to they are in reference to the English translation provided by applicant on 02/21/2024)
Regarding claim 1 Theurer teaches a tamping unit (FIG. 1: 1) for tamping sleepers of a track (FIG. 1: 5), comprising a tamping unit segment (FIG. 1: 28-31) with opposing tamping tools (FIG. 1: 33-36) tiltably mounted on a height-adjustable tool carrier (FIG. 1: 39; paragraph 25), with the respective tamping tool being coupled with a vibration drive (FIG. 1: 27; paragraph 24) via a transmission element (FIG. 1: depicted connecting 27 & 22 and also connecting 27 & 23), characterized in that wherein the respective transmission element is connected with the assigned tamping tool via a first joint (FIG. 1:joint depicted between 22 & 27 and between 23 & 27) and with a squeezing drive (FIG. 1: 22-25) supported on the same tamping tool via a second joint (FIG. 1: between 22-25 & 28-31).
Regarding claim 4 Theurer teaches that the vibration drive is designed as an eccentric drive (FIG. 1: 27 depicted with eccentric off-set center of rotation used to produce the vibration).
Regarding claim 5 Theurer eaches that each transmission element is connected with an eccentric arm mounted on an eccentric section of an eccentric shaft (FIG. 1: 27 depicted with eccentric shaft, arms depicted mounted to it as part of the transmission elements, if the arms are mounted to the eccentric shaft then under the broadest reasonable interpretation they are eccentric arms) in an articulated manner (FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 9 Theurer teaches that the respective tamping tool has an upper lever arm (FIG. 1: 28-31) and a lower lever arm, that lower lever arm comprises at least one tamping tine (FIG. 1: 33-36), and the upper lever arm is connected with the assigned transmission element (FIG. 1: depicted indirectly connected).
Regarding claim 10 Theurer teaches that at least one tamping tine is arranged in a tamping tine support (FIG. 1: depicted with the bottoms of 28-31 forming tamping tine supports) that can be tilted upwards (FIG. 1: depicted with structure suitable for tilting the tines and tine supports in a way that is less downward facing).
Regarding claim 11 Theurer teaches that the respective tamping unit segment comprises only two tamping tools for tamping a single sleeper of the track (FIG. 1: tools 33 & 34 tamp a single sleeper, other tamping tools do not tamp that sleeper, this is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as best understood).
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) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer (EP 0208826 A1, when paragraph numbers are referred to they are in reference to the English translation provided by applicant on 02/21/2024) in view of Pasquini (US 4744304 A).
Regarding claim 2 Theurer does not explicitly teach that the respective transmission element is linked to the vibration drive via a third joint, however, Pasquini does (FIG. 2: 27). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the third joint of Pasquini with the tamping device of Theurer in order to better control the movement of the tamping tools.
Regarding claim 3 Theurer as modified above teaches that the third joint is arranged between the first joint and the second joint (result of the above combination, see Pasquini FIG. 2: joints at 41, 27, & 25).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer (EP 0208826 A1, when paragraph numbers are referred to they are in reference to the English translation provided by applicant on 02/21/2024) in view of Hofstatter (EP 3653789 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Theurer does no explicitly teach that the respective squeezing drive is designed as a hydraulic cylinder with an approximately vertically aligned cylinder axis however Hofstatter does (FIG. 1: 22). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the vertically aligned cylinder of Hofstatter with the tamping device of Theurer in order to make the cylinder more accessible for repairs.
Regarding claim 7 Theurer as modified above teaches that each squeezing cylinder is linked to the assigned tamping tool on the cylinder side and to the assigned transmission element on the piston side (Hofstatter FIG. 1: depicted).
Regarding claim 8 Theurer as modified above does not explicitly teach that an angle between the respective cylinder axis and the vertical axis is at most 20 degrees, in particular at most 10 degrees, during a squeezing process. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Theurer as modified above to use a cylinder axis angle within a range of 0 to 10 or 0 to 20 degrees, so as to achieve an optimal tamping effectiveness, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim(s) 12-13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer (EP 0208826 A1, when paragraph numbers are referred to they are in reference to the English translation provided by applicant on 02/21/2024) in view of Theurer (US 5706734 A, herein after referred to as ‘734).
Regarding claim 12 Theurer does not explicitly teach that several tamping unit segments are arranged one behind the other for the simultaneous tamping of adjacent sleepers of the track, however ‘734 does each this (FIG. 4: 15-17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included additional tamping unit segments with the tamping device of Theurer in order o tamp more track at a time and thus work more quickly and efficiently.
Regarding claim 13 Theurer as modified above teaches that the tamping unit segments arranged one behind the other are arranged in a shared tamping unit frame (‘734 FIG. 1: 6) and that each tamping unit segment is height-adjustable separately (‘734 FIG. 4: depicted with 16 down and 15 & 17 up) by means of an assigned heigh-adjustment drive (‘734 FIG. 1: 19).
Regarding claim 15 Theurer as modified above teaches that at least two tamping unit segments are of identical design (result of the combination).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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 claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 14 no prior art made of record teaches a tamping unit comprising only some tamping unit segments that have tamping tine supports that can be tilted upwards. A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach tamping units of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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 J Morano IV 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/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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights