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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-9 are currently amended. Claims 10-20 are newly added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 April 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 108086070 A) in view of Watanabe (JP 2018141754 A).
In regards to claim 1, A device detecting (see machine translation, para. [0009]) crossties (10) (Fig. 1) of a track (as seen in Fig. 4), said device comprising;
a crosstie detection sensor (100) (Fig. 1) that is arranged on a track-laying machine or on a track measuring wagon associated with the track-laying machine (para. [0016], “track tamping vehicle”), said crosstie detection sensor measuring and determining positions (para. [0009]) of the crossties on the track;
wherein the crosstie detection sensor comprises
a magnet (3) generating a magnetic field (para. [0055], lines 1-4) in a magnetic circuit with at least one air gap (as seen in Fig. 1) between the crosstie detection sensor and the track; and
;
Yan does not teach a Hall sensor producing a Hall voltage arranged in the magnetic circuit; wherein the Hall voltage of said Hall sensor changing in a longitudinal direction of the track provides a determination of position.
Watanabe teaches a Hall sensor (112) (Fig. 2) producing a Hall voltage arranged in the magnetic circuit (see machine translation, para. [0011], lines 4-6); wherein the Hall voltage of said Hall sensor changing in a longitudinal direction (para. [0011], lines 6-11) of the track provides a determination of position (para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a Hall sensor producing a Hall voltage as taught by Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the sensitivity of the system when determining the position of the crossties (see Watanabe, para. [0005]).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the magnet includes an electromagnet (Yan, para. [0013], “magnetic induction switch”) or a permanent magnet.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein detection of metallic components (Yan, para. [0013], “track spikes”) between the crossties is provided by the crosstie detection sensor and one or more additional crosstie detection sensors (4, 5) (Yan, Fig. 2) arranged next to each other in a transverse direction of the track (Yan, as seen in Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the Hall sensor (112) (Watanabe, Fig. 2) is positioned in the air gap (Watanabe, as seen in Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein detection of metallic components (Yan, para. [0013], “track spikes”) between the crossties is provided by the crosstie detection sensor and one or more additional crosstie detection sensors (4, 5) (Yan, Fig. 2) arranged next to each other in a transverse direction of the track (Yan, as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 108086070 A) in view of Watanabe (JP 2018141754 A) and Fox (US 1088814 A).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 5, wherein at least one of the crosstie detection sensors is supported so as to be
Yan does not teach wherein the crosstie detection sensors are displaced in the transverse direction of the track by a displacement device.
Fox teaches wherein the crosstie detection sensors (31) (Fig. 1) are displaced in the in the transverse direction (col. 4, lines 90-94, “movable horizontally in a transverse direction”) of the track by a displacement device (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a displacement device to move in a transverse direction as taught by Fox with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the system to operate with less sensors (see Fox, col. 4, lines 85-89).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe and Fox above teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one crosstie detection sensor is arranged on the track-laying machine and/or the track measuring wagon so as to be adjustable in height (Fox, col. 4, lines 100-101, “vertically-movable magnet cores”) with respect to the track.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the crosstie detection sensors is supported so as to be
Yan does not teach wherein the crosstie detection sensors are displaced in the transverse direction of the track by a displacement device.
Fox teaches wherein the crosstie detection sensors (31) (Fig. 1) are displaced in the in the transverse direction (col. 4, lines 90-94, “movable horizontally in a transverse direction”) of the track by a displacement device (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a displacement device to move in a transverse direction as taught by Fox with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the system to operate with less sensors (see Fox, col. 4, lines 85-89).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe and Fox above teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the at least one crosstie detection sensor is arranged on the track-laying machine and/or the track measuring wagon so as to be adjustable in height (Fox, col. 4, lines 100-101, “vertically-movable magnet cores”) with respect to the track.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 108086070 A) in view of Watanabe (JP 2018141754 A), Delmonico (US 20140260643 A1), and William (US 3286648 A).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the magnet includes
Yan does not teach wherein the magnet includes a permanent magnet.
Delmonico teaches wherein the magnet includes a permanent magnet (para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a permanent magnet as taught by Delmonico with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the power costs of the system (see Delmonico, para. [0018]).
Yan does not teach wherein a current coil of the electromagnet is connected to a direct current source and generates a direct magnetic field in the magnetic circuit.
William teaches wherein a current coil of the electromagnet is connected to a direct current source and generates a direct magnetic field in the magnetic circuit (col. 10, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include utilizing a direct current source as taught by William with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of matching the system to an expanded range of current sources since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe, Delmonico, and William above teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein detection of metallic components (Yan, para. [0013], “track spikes”) between the crossties is provided by the crosstie detection sensor and one or more additional crosstie detection sensors (4, 5) (Yan, Fig. 2) arranged next to each other in a transverse direction of the track (Yan, as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 108086070 A) in view of Watanabe (JP 2018141754 A), Delmonico (US 20140260643 A1), William (US 3286648 A), and Fox (US 1088814 A).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe, Delmonico, and William above teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein at least one of the crosstie detection sensors is supported so as to be vehicle”) so as to search for metallic components (Yan, para. [0013], “track spikes”) on the track.
Yan does not teach wherein the crosstie detection sensors are displaced in the transverse direction of the track by a displacement device.
Fox teaches wherein the crosstie detection sensors (31) (Fig. 1) are displaced in the in the transverse direction (col. 4, lines 90-94, “movable horizontally in a transverse direction”) of the track by a displacement device (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a displacement device to move in a transverse direction as taught by Fox with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the system to operate with less sensors (see Fox, col. 4, lines 85-89).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe, Delmonico, William, and Fox above teaches the device according to claim 14, wherein the at least one crosstie detection sensor is arranged on the track-laying machine and/or the track measuring wagon so as to be adjustable in height (Fox, col. 4, lines 100-101, “vertically-movable magnet cores”) with respect to the track.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 108086070 A) in view of Watanabe (JP 2018141754 A), Delmonico (US 20140260643 A1), and Guo (CN 211848667 U).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the magnet includes
Yan does not teach wherein the magnet includes a permanent magnet.
Delmonico teaches wherein the magnet includes a permanent magnet (para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a permanent magnet as taught by Delmonico with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the power costs of the system (see Delmonico, para. [0018]).
Yan does not teach wherein a current coil of the electromagnet is connected to an alternating current source and generates an alternating magnetic field in the magnetic circuit.
Guo teaches wherein a current coil of the electromagnet is connected to an alternating current source and generates an alternating magnetic field in the magnetic circuit (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include utilizing an alternating current source as taught by Guo with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of matching the system to an expanded range of current sources since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe, Delmonico, and Guo above teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein detection of metallic components (Yan, para. [0013], “track spikes”) between the crossties is provided by the crosstie detection sensor and one or more additional crosstie detection sensors (4, 5) (Yan, Fig. 2) arranged next to each other in a transverse direction of the track (Yan, as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 108086070 A) in view of Watanabe (JP 2018141754 A), Delmonico (US 20140260643 A1), Guo (CN 211848667 U), and Fox (US 1088814 A).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe, Delmonico, and Guo above teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein at least one of the crosstie detection sensors is supported so as to be
Yan does not teach wherein the crosstie detection sensors are displaced in the transverse direction of the track by a displacement device.
Fox teaches wherein the crosstie detection sensors (31) (Fig. 1) are displaced in the in the transverse direction (col. 4, lines 90-94, “movable horizontally in a transverse direction”) of the track by a displacement device (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosstie detection sensor of Yan to include a displacement device to move in a transverse direction as taught by Fox with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the system to operate with less sensors (see Fox, col. 4, lines 85-89).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe, Delmonico, Guo, and Fox above teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the at least one crosstie detection sensor is arranged on the track-laying machine and/or the track measuring wagon so as to be adjustable in height (Fox, col. 4, lines 100-101, “vertically-movable magnet cores”) with respect to the track.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19-20 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 claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 9, the combination of Yan as modified by Watanabe above teaches the device according to claim 1, and further comprising a control system (6) (Yan, Fig. 1) that continuously determines
Yan does not teach wherein a control system continuously determines a limit value from a difference of voltage peaks of the Hall voltage over a track length and a base level of the Hall voltage, the limit value lying between the voltage peaks and the base level, and determines the position of the crosstie in the track from an average value of intersection points of each of the voltage peaks with the limit value.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Yan to include determining a limit value from a difference of voltage peaks of the Hall voltage over a track length and a base level of the Hall voltage, wherein the limit value lies between the voltage peaks and the base level, and determining the position of the crosstie from an average value of intersection points of each of the voltage peaks with the limit value as the modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require improperly modifying the Hall sensor and voltage of Watanabe, thus improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 9 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 19 is also non-obvious in view of the prior art of record due to containing similar allowable limitations as claim 9, but is also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 20 is also non-obvious in view of the prior art of record due to containing similar allowable limitations as claim 9, but is also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (CN 110670429 A) discloses a sleeper position protecting device.
Euston (US 20180281829 A1) discloses a railroad track guidance system and method.
Fukuhara (JP 2008184763 A) discloses a method and equipment for detecting coming-off of fastening bolts from rail joint plates.
Bolding (WO 0123701 A1) discloses a horizontal drill pipe racker and delivery system.
Stewart (US 3504635 A) discloses a work head positioning mean.
Kershaw (US 2986100 A) discloses a railway crosstie detector.
Yuan (US 20200057119 A1) discloses a magnetic field sensing device.
Mesher (US 20190349566 A1) discloses a 3D track assessment method.
Imai (US 20090206833 A1) discloses a magnetic sensor and magnetic field strength measurement method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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 Morano can be reached at (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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights