DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
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 of this title, 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN 112379004 A, hereafter HouA - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Hou et al. (CN 113834744 A, hereafter HouB - all citations are to the attached English translation).Regarding claim 1:HouA teaches a movable apparatus for track structure disease recognition ([0007]-[0012]), comprising
a supporting frame (e.g., FIG. 1 - 1), wherein the movable apparatus further comprises a loading assembly, a travelling assembly, and a control system that are connected to the supporting frame (e.g., [0041], [0043]), as well as a data collection system configured to collect response information fed back from a recognized track ([0039]), the loading assembly comprises a hammering mechanism configured to apply an excitation load downwards to track ([0041], [0044], etc.); the travelling assembly comprises travelling wheels located at a front end and a rear end; the travelling wheels are configured to roll on the top surface of the recognized track (e.g., FIG. 1 - 6’s; [0054]); the control system comprises a mileage monitoring module configured to monitor distance travelled by any of the travelling wheels (e.g., [0050]), and a control module configured to drive the hammering mechanism to operate; and the mileage monitoring module is connected with the control module through signals(e.g., [0044], [0047], [0050])HouA fails to teach:
a knocking wheel configured to roll on a top surface of the recognized trackHouB teaches:
a knocking wheel (FIG. 1 - 3; [0042], [0048]) configured to roll on a top surface of the recognized track (FIG. 1 - track on which 3 sits)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the knocking wheel of HouB in the device of HouA as it is an art-recognized equivalent way for producing an impact to the track for track diagnostics.
Regarding claim 9:HouA and HouB teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.HouA fails to teach:
wherein the control system further comprises a human-computer interaction module connected to the control module through signalsHouB teaches:
wherein the control system further comprises a human-computer interaction module connected to the control module through signals ([0050]-[0051], [0062])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the human-computer interaction module of HouB in the device of HouA to allow for real-time data and accuracy viewing by the operator.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN 112379004 A, hereafter HouA - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Hou et al. (CN 113834744 A, hereafter HouB - all citations are to the attached English translation) and further in view of Skoblenick (US 20130090046 A1).Regarding claim 8:HouA and HouB teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.HouA fails to teach:
wherein the travelling assembly further comprises several auxiliary wheels that are located at a bottom of the supporting frame and are inwards distributed in pairs, and several universal wheels located below the supporting frameSkoblenick teaches:
wherein the travelling assembly further comprises several auxiliary wheels that are located at a bottom of the supporting frame and are inwards distributed in pairs, and several universal wheels located below the supporting frame([0045], FIG. 8 - 148s, claims 15-17, [0060], FIG. 20 - 152s, claims 19-20)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the auxiliary and universal wheels of Skoblenick in the device of HouA to increase stability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (CN 112379004 A, hereafter HouA - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Hou et al. (CN 113834744 A, hereafter HouB - all citations are to the attached English translation) and further in view of Aoki (US 20150246438 A1) and Deng et al. (CN 116552598 A).Regarding claim 10:HouA and HouB teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.HouA fails to teach:
wherein the data collection system comprises a first sensor configured to monitor a hammering force of the hammering mechanism, a second sensor configured to monitor wheel-track noise of the knocking wheel and the recognized track, a third sensor configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of the knocking wheel, a fourth sensor configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of the supporting frame, a fifth sensor configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of a front wheel, a sixth sensor configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of a rear wheel, and a data collection module configured to store collected response informationHouB teaches:
wherein the data collection system comprises a first sensor configured to monitor a hammering force of the hammering mechanism ([0051]), a second sensor configured to monitor wheel-track noise of the knocking wheel and the recognized track (e.g., [0051]), a third sensor configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of the knocking wheel (e.g., [0051]), a data collection module configured to store collected response information (e.g., [0051])Aoki teaches:
a fourth sensor configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of the supporting frame (185), Deng teaches:
a fifth sensor (e.g., FIG. 1 - 3) configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of a front wheel, and a sixth sensor (e.g., FIG. 1 - 7) configured to monitor a vibration acceleration of a rear wheel
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use additional sensors for detecting vibration / noise / etc. in order to compensate the impact signal for noise due to rattling, vibration of other elements, existing track vibrations, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 11-20 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 2: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a movable apparatus for track structure disease recognition wherein the hammering mechanism comprises a mounting plate fixed to the supporting frame, a knocked shaft penetrating through the mounting plate, a force transmission wheel connected below the knocked shaft, a knocking hammer located above the knocked shaft, and a power mechanism configured to drive the knocking hammer to knock a top end of the knocked shaft; the power mechanism is connected to the mounting plate; and the force transmission wheel is in contact with a top end of the knocking wheel, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claims 3-7 and 11-20: Each of these claims are allowable due to at least their dependency on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights