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 Claims / Response to Amendment
This action is in reply to the response filed on 07/28/2026. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims and are hereby withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Panetti (US Patent No. 4,416,091), hereinafter referred to as Panetti.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Panetti discloses a vehicle for machining a rail by grinding and/or planning [Panetti, figs 1 and 11], comprising a mobile chassis [Panetti, fig 1, 2] and a metal abrasive module for grinding and/or planning a rail, the metal abrasive module comprising:
an eccentric drive performing an eccentric movement [Panetti, abstract, col 5, lines 44-65, teaching that the embodiment of fig 11 is the same as figs 1 and 2];
at least two abrasive blocks connected with the eccentric drive [Panetti, fig 11, 6, where there are shown at least two blocks that are connected via intermediate members to the eccentric drive];
a force exerting drive pressing at least one abrasive block of the at least two abrasive blocks onto the rail [Panetti, fig 2, 14 presses at least one of the 6s];
wherein the metal abrasive module and/or at least one of the abrasive blocks is tiltable around an axis parallel to the rail [Panetti, fig 2, showing that 6 is tiltable with respect to the axis through 9, which is an axis parallel with the rail 1]; and
wherein at least one of the abrasive blocks is individually pressable onto the rail [Panetti, fig 2, showing that 14 presses 6 against 1].
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a translational movement component of at least one of the at least two abrasive blocks is longer than the length of the respective at least one abrasive block [Panetti, figs 1 and 11 showing that the speed of rotation of 3 affects the translation of 2 which affects the translation of 6, and thus the speed is set by the user and therefore there exists a translational movement of 6 that is longer than the length of 6, or another interpretation is that the circumference of 6 is longer than the length of contact between the rail 1 and 6].
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the eccentric movement has a scotch yoke mechanism [Panetti, fig 11, showing 56, 57, and 58 forming a scotch yoke mechanism].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the at least two abrasive blocks are coupled together [Panetti, fig 11, showing that each 6 is coupled together to form 11 through intermediate members].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive module can be tilted from vertical towards an outer side and/or inner side of the rail [Panetti, fig 2, showing 6 is tilted towards an outer side of 1, where the office interprets this limitation broadly that the abrasive module needs only be at an angle and that no movement or drive to make the tilting happening has been claimed because per MPEP 2114(II) the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim].
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a guide roller adjacent to the metal abrasive module and/or abrasive block, wherein the guide roller is in contact with the rail [Panetti, fig 2, 3].
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least two abrasive modules are each connected to an individual guide roller [Panetti, figs 1 and 11, showing that each 6 can be connected to a respective 3 through intermediate members].
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Panetti discloses a method for machining a rail by grinding and/or planing, comprising the steps of: approaching a surface to be machined until contact with a metal abrasive module with at least two abrasive blocks connected with a vehicle [Panetti, fig 11, showing multiple 6s contact rail 1]; tilting the metal abrasive module and/or at least one abrasive block parallel to a desired surface form [Panetti, fig 2, showing 6 is tilted]; and performing eccentric movements with the metal abrasive module while pressing the metal abrasive module onto the rail [Panetti, abstract and fig 2, 9 provides eccentric drive].
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 5, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panetti (US Patent No. 4,416,091) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pfingstl et al (WIPO Publication No. WO2022161853) as evidenced by the machine translation of Pfingstl, hereinafter referred to as Panetti and Pfingstl, respectively.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Panetti discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the eccentric drive is driven by a variable frequency electric motor and/or a hydraulic drive.
Pfingstl teaches a vehicle for machining a rail by grinding and/or planning [Pfingstl, fig 1], comprising a mobile chassis [Pfingstl, fig 1, 1] and a metal abrasive module for grinding and/or planning a rail [Pfingstl, fig 1, 16], the metal abrasive module comprising:
an eccentric drive performing an eccentric movement [Pfingstl, pages 20-21, pp’s 0044-0045, 16, which comprises eccentric drive(s) A1-A4], the eccentric drive is driven by a hydraulic drive [Pfingstl, page 4, pp 0008 and page 11, pp 00253];
at least two abrasive blocks connected with the eccentric drive [Pfingstl, fig 3, W11-W13 and W21-W23];
a force exerting drive pressing at least one abrasive block onto the rail [Pgingstl, page 22, pp 0048].
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 eccentric drive of Panetti to be a hydraulic drive as taught by Pfingstl because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the hydraulic drive as taught by Pfingstl in the system of Panetti, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the hydraulic drive of the eccentric drive as taught by Pfingstl in the system of Panetti because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being using the eccentric hydraulic drive of Pfingstl for the eccentric drive of Panetti. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the same eccentric movement of Panetti would be used with drive being hydraulic.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a debris suction head adjacent to the contact surface of the metal abrasive module with the rail.
Pfingstl teaches a vehicle for machining a rail by grinding and/or planning [Pfingstl, fig 1], comprising a mobile chassis [Pfingstl, fig 1, 1] and a metal abrasive module for grinding and/or planning a rail [Pfingstl, fig 1, 16], the metal abrasive module comprising:
an eccentric drive performing an eccentric movement [Pfingstl, pages 20-21, pp’s 0044-0045, 16, which comprises eccentric drive(s) A1-A4], the eccentric drive is driven by a hydraulic drive [Pfingstl, page 4, pp 0008 and page 11, pp 00253];
at least two abrasive blocks connected with the eccentric drive [Pfingstl, fig 3, W11-W13 and W21-W23];
a force exerting drive pressing at least one abrasive block onto the rail [Pfingstl, page 22, pp 0048];
further comprising a debris suction head adjacent to the contact surface of the metal abrasive module with the rail [Pfingstl, figs 5-8, S1-S4 and pages 27-28, pp’s 0062-0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included the debris suction head as taught by Pfingstl in the system of Panetti because this ensures that the particles produced by grinding do not contaminate the track bed [Pfingstl, page 9, pp 0019, summarized].
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the abrasive module is connected to a guide roller with a debris suction head.
Pfingstl teaches a vehicle for machining a rail by grinding and/or planning [Pfingstl, fig 1], comprising a mobile chassis [Pfingstl, fig 1, 1] and a metal abrasive module for grinding and/or planning a rail [Pfingstl, fig 1, 16], the metal abrasive module comprising:
an eccentric drive performing an eccentric movement [Pfingstl, pages 20-21, pp’s 0044-0045, 16, which comprises eccentric drive(s) A1-A4], the eccentric drive is driven by a hydraulic drive [Pfingstl, page 4, pp 0008 and page 11, pp 00253];
at least two abrasive blocks connected with the eccentric drive [Pfingstl, fig 3, W11-W13 and W21-W23];
a force exerting drive pressing at least one abrasive block onto the rail [Pgingstl, page 22, pp 0048];
wherein the abrasive module is connected to a guide roller with a debris suction head [Pgingstl, figs 5-8, S1-S4 and pages 27-28, pp’s 0062-0064, where S1-S4 are connected to S19 via intermediate members].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included the debris suction head as taught by Pfingstl in the system of Panetti because this ensures that the particles produced by grinding do not contaminate the track bed [Pfingstl, page 9, pp 0019, summarized].
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Panetti further discloses the method according claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising the step of suction of debris and/or metal chips adjacent to at least one of the abrasive blocks.
Pfingstl teaches a vehicle for machining a rail by grinding and/or planning [Pfingstl, fig 1], comprising a mobile chassis [Pfingstl, fig 1, 1] and a metal abrasive module for grinding and/or planning a rail [Pfingstl, fig 1, 16], the metal abrasive module comprising:
an eccentric drive performing an eccentric movement [Pfingstl, pages 20-21, pp’s 0044-0045, 16, which comprises eccentric drive(s) A1-A4], the eccentric drive is driven by a hydraulic drive [Pfingstl, page 4, pp 0008 and page 11, pp 00253];
at least two abrasive blocks connected with the eccentric drive [Pfingstl, fig 3, W11-W13 and W21-W23];
a force exerting drive pressing at least one abrasive block onto the rail [Pgingstl, page 22, pp 0048];
further comprising the step of suction of debris and/or metal chips adjacent to at least one of the abrasive blocks [Pgingstl, figs 5-8, S1-S4 and pages 27-28, pp’s 0062-0064, where at least S1 and S2 are adjacent to the W11-W13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included the debris suction head as taught by Pfingstl in the system of Panetti because this ensures that the particles produced by grinding do not contaminate the track bed [Pfingstl, page 9, pp 0019, summarized].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 11, the applicant has argued on page 5 that Panetti does not teach the limitation “wherein at least one of the abrasive blocks is individually pressable onto the rail” of claim 1, since this limitation requires individual pressability as a distinct feature among those multiple blocks and is structurally incapable of individually pressing discrete abrasive blocks and that there is no mechanism that exists for pressing any individual wheel independently of the others.
Respectfully the Office disagrees because the limitation reads as “wherein at least one of the abrasive blocks is individually pressable onto the rail” where the term “at least one” means that this is broad in that more than one block could also be pressable onto the rail by an individual presser. When read broadly, Panetti reads on this limitation in that one presser, presses at least one of the blocks and also happens to press more than one block. Further, only abrasive blocks were claimed, which the abrasive wheel of Panetti reads on, and not individual abrasive blocks on a single grinding unit are claimed. More structure would be required to be claimed to distinguish the instant claim(s) over Panetti in order to achieve this function as argued by the Applicant. For these reasons, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jaeggi (US Patent No. 5,997,391) teaches in figure 11 a rail grinder device comprising multiple grind stones on a grinding element to grind and profile a rail. Mervert (US PGPUB No. 2024/0084520) teaches a individual grind stone being adjusted individually. Behrens (US Patent No. 10,094,072) teaches a rail grinding grindstone comprising multiple blocks. Theurer (US Patent No. 4,534,689) teaches in figure 8 multiple abrasive blocks on a grinding element to profile a rail. Panetti (US Patent No. 4,846,765) teaches a rail grinding apparatus comprising a grinding unit comprising multiple grindstones that are individually controllable (fig 3, 32 adjust the angle of 60). Theurer (US Patent No. 4,050,196) teaches individual grindstones being individually adjusted (fig 4). Panetti (US Patent No. 4,492,059) teaches a plurality of grinding blocks being individually adjusted (figs 3-5).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights