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 Objections
Claims 2-19 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim should begin with “the track slab” instead of “a track slab.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-22 are 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the language of “need not be” is not clear. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “need not be” is that of a preference. In other words, is the claim reciting something that is not required or is “need not be” intended to be a negative limitation? In any event the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined such that it is not clear if tracks aligning with each other would infringe on the claim.
The claims are indefinite because they further include limitations that are “preferred” therefore it is not clear whether those elements that are preferred are actually required or not. For example, see claims 5 and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150298014 to Devito.
Regarding claim 1, Devito discloses a track slab comprising a plurality of juxtaposed slabs with at least one rail extending over those slabs (see Fig. 3 showing 2 slabs 24, 26),
the slabs having opposed convex end and concave end in respective ends for inter-engaging of adjacent slabs (as evident from Fig. 3 via 50)
whereby the slabs are configured to be positioned substantially in the plane of the inter-engaging convex end and concave end whereby the longitudinal axis of each slab need not be parallel or aligned with adjacent slabs (e.g. see Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10).
Regarding claim 2, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1, wherein the convex end and the concave end are shaped to allow articulation thereabout (e.g. as evident from Figs. 10, 11; see [0046] disclosing “relative twisting of adjacent [slabs]”).
Regarding claim 3, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 wherein the slabs are provided so that the convex end and the concave end are reciprocally shaped for inter- engaging with adjacent slabs in use (as evident from Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 4, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 3 wherein the slab has a lop or shelf or ledge element or tongue and groove/slot at the convex and concave ends to align the slab with other juxtaposed slabs in use (as evident from Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 wherein the slab has a slot lateral from an edge and arranged to receive a clip such that the clip for a rail can be positioned along the slot (see Fig. 2 showing clips 36)
Regarding claim 8, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 wherein a slab with a longitudinal recess along the slab is configured to provide accommodation for transit of service and other conduits (as evident from e.g. Fig. 2, being a conduit for spring 80).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2477319 to Hammond.
Regarding claim 1, Hammond discloses a track slab comprising a plurality of juxtaposed slabs with at least one rail extending over those slabs (e.g. see Figs. 10, 11)
the slabs having opposed convex end and concave end in respective ends for inter-engaging of adjacent slabs (e.g. see Abstract; pg 8, ln 20-25)
whereby the slabs are configured to be positioned substantially in the plane of the inter-engaging convex end and concave end whereby the longitudinal axis of each slab need not be parallel or aligned with adjacent slabs (e.g. see Figs. 5, 8; noting the ambiguity of this limitation interpreted merely as a preference).
Regarding claim 9, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 wherein the slab is formed with fibres for reinforcement (e.g. see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Hammond disclose the track slab as claimed in claim 1 wherein the slab has drainage holes and an exposed surface of the slab has a slope or curve to urge water and other liquids toward the drainage holes (e.g. see Figs. 1-4, 7).
Regarding claim 16, Hammond discloses the track slab track slab as claimed in any preceding claim 1 wherein there is provided lift slots in the slab (e.g. see Fig. 1 where there are slots that may be used to facilitate lifting the slab; e.g. 18b).
Regarding claim 18, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in any preceding claim 1wherein the slab includes means for accommodation of soil for plant growth such as grass (e.g. as evident from Fig. 1 wherein there are surfaces capable of supporting an accumulation of soil).
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) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devito.
Regarding claim 10, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not disclose that the slab is 200 mm in thickness. However, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such dimension of the slab with the motivation of providing adequate support for the loads placed thereon.
Regarding claim 11, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 wherein the slab can have a plurality of lengths whereby a range of curves in conjoined juxtaposed slabs can be achieved (as evident from Figs. 10, 11 with the end slabs being longer than those in the middle). While recognizing that drawings not expressly disclosed to scale may be relied upon with exactness, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such dimension of the slab with the motivation of simplifying assembly for large lengths of straightaways thereby reducing assembly time.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113584957 A to Yu in view of CN 111473810 A to Yao.
Regarding claim 20, Yu discloses a track slab comprising a plurality of juxtaposed slabs with at least one rail extending over those slabs (e.g. see Fig. 11), but does not disclose in which the slab includes at least one optical fibre and preferably at least optical fibres arranged to allow coupling with other optical fibres. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Yao discloses such (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of monitoring the slab for indication of wear or related concerns.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Yao in further view of CN 114197252 A to Sun.
Regarding claim 21, Yu in view of Yao discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 20 wherein said optical fibre but does not disclose a sensor adapted to determine the specific vibration signature frequencies of the track. Nevertheless in a related field of invention Sun discloses such (see English translation, pg 5, 2nd to last paragraph describing vibration sensors). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of monitoring the slab for indication of wear or related concerns.
Regarding claim 22, Yu in view of Yao and Sun discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 21 wherein the slab includes means for acoustic monitoring and/or moisture sensing and/or temperature monitoring and/or slab movement sensors (e.g. see Abstract of Yao). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of monitoring the slab for indication of wear or related concerns.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Yao.
Regarding claim 5, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not disclose that the slab includes at least one optical fibre and preferably at least 3 optical fibres arranged to allow coupling with other optical fibres. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Yao discloses such (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of monitoring the slab for indication of wear or related concerns.
Regarding claim 14, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not disclose that the slab includes means for acoustic monitoring and/or moisture sensing and/or temperature monitoring and/or slab movement sensors. Nevertheless in a relative field of invention, Yao discloses such (e.g. see Abstract of Yao). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of monitoring the slab for indication of wear or related concerns.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Yao and Sun.
Regarding claim 6, Hammond in view of Yao discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 5 but not wherein said optical fibre further comprises a sensor adapted to determine specific vibration signature frequencies of the track. Nevertheless in a related field of invention Sun discloses such (see English translation, pg 5, 2nd to last paragraph describing vibration sensors). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of monitoring the slab for indication of wear or related concerns.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devito in view of US 6796509 to Webster et al. (“Webster”).
Regarding claim 12, Devito discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the slab is provided with charging loops embedded within the slab. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Webster discloses such (e.g. see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of providing power to mobile elements.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of US 1372099 to Short.
Regarding claim 15, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not expressly disclose infill material is provided below the slab to provide support and/or reduce sub-slab base degradation. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Short discloses such (see Fig. 2, element A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of enhancing load distribution of moving forces.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of US 20140368044 to Jensen.
Regarding claim 17, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not disclose that the slab includes solar panels located on at least a portion of the upper surface of the slab. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Jensen discloses solar panels 210 on a bed supporting rails (e.g. see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of obtaining a source of power.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of US 4771698 to De Kermadec et al. (“Kermadec”).
Regarding claim 19, Hammond discloses the track slab as claimed in claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the slab includes audible animal and/or trespass alarms. Kermadec discloses (e.g. see col. 1 ln 25-32 providing an overview of the sensing means). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of enhancing safety of persons operating near the tracks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights