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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without one lever arm protruding through a fork-shaped opening of the other lever arm, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The specification and drawings only teach a fork for the connecting part of the lever arm, but not that one lever arm protrudes through another.
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(s) 1--15 is/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.
Regarding claim 1 the limitation “respective lever arm” is unclear because previously only “a lever arm” had been introduced but this implies that there are more than one. Amending the claim to positively affirm if one lever arm is claims or if there are a plurality claimed would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 1 the limitation “a squeeze drive” and “the assigned squeeze drive” are unclear together because it is unclear how many squeeze drives are claimed. Amending the claim to positively affirm if there is one squeeze drive or a plurality of squeeze drives would overcome this rejection.
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 14, & 15 also reference multiple squeeze drives which is unclear in view of claim 1’s ambiguity around the plurality of the squeeze drive(s). They may need to be amended along with claim 1 in order to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 2 there are two lever arms mentioned but only a single lever arm introduced in claim 1. It is unclear which lever arm of the one lever arm and other lever arm is the one referenced in claim 1 or neither or both must comply with those limitations. Amending the claim to clarify the relationship between the “one lever arm” and “other lever arm” in claim 2 with the “a lever arm” and “respective lever arm” would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 3 the limitation “in particular” is unclear because it does not make clear if the limitation is required or just an example. Amending the claim to remove that phrase would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 9 & 10 the phrase “respective limit stop device” makes it unclear how many limit stop devices there are because claim 8 only introduced a single adjustable limit stop device. It is not clear how the “respective limit stop device’s “ are related to the “adjustable limit stop device” of claim 8. Amending claims 8-10 to clarify this matter 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) 1-6, 11, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cicin et al. (CH 650819 A5, herein after referred to as Cicin).
Regarding claim 1 Cicin teaches a tamping unit segment for tamping sleepers (FIG. 2: 3) of a track (FIG. 2: 2), with tamping tools (FIG. 2: 4 & 5) mounted on a height-adjustable tool carrier (FIG. 2: 14) opposite one another with respect to a vertical centre plane (FIG. 2: depicted), which are each connected to a squeeze drive (FIG. 2: 17 & 18) for generating a squeezing movement, wherein a lever arm (FIG. 2: 8 & 9) with a connecting part (FIG. 2: 19 & 20) projecting over the centre plane is arranged on each tamping tool and in that the connecting part of the respective lever arm is connected to the assigned squeeze drive (FIG. 2: depicted).
Regarding claim 2 Cicin teaches that the one lever arm protrudes through a fork-shaped opening of the other lever arm (FIG. 2 & 3: depicted with same sort of fork design as the instant invention is depicted with).
Regarding claim 3 Cicin teaches that an effecting axis of the respective squeeze drive forms an acute angle with the centre plane, in particular an angle of up to 30 degrees (FIG. 2: depicted).
Regarding claim 4 Cicin teaches that each squeeze drive is connected to an eccentric shaft of a vibration drive (FIG. 2: connected indirectly to 7).
Regarding claim 5 Cicin teaches that equalizing masses are arranged on the eccentric shaft (FIG. 1: 30, 31, & 32 all function as equalizing masses affecting the eccentric shaft).
Regarding claim 6 Cicin teaches that each squeeze drive is set up as a hydraulic cylinder for generating a vibration superimposed on the squeezing movement (FIG. 2: depicted).
Regarding claim 11 Cicin teaches that each tamping tool comprises a tamping tine holder with two tamping tines fastened therein (FIG. 3: depicted with two instances of 10).
Regarding claim 14 Cicin teaches that the tamping tools inserted into a ballast bed during a squeezing process are squeezed by pulling the connecting part of the respective lever arm upwards by means of the assigned squeeze drive (FIG. 2: depicted structure).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicin et al. (CH 650819 A5, herein after referred to as Cicin) in view of Lichtberger (EP 3239398 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Cicin does not explicitly teach that each squeeze drive is coupled to a distance sensor to record an actuating distance but Lichtberger does (FIG. 2: 24). 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 distance sensor of Lichtberger in the tamping assembly of Cicin in order to detect mechanical problems automatically.
Regarding claim 8 Cicin does not explicitly teach that each squeeze drive is coupled to an adjustable limit stop device in such a way that a limit stop element can be moved against a limit stop through an actuation of the squeeze drive but Lichtberger does (FIG. 2: 7, 9, & 30). 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 limit stop device and element of Lichtberger with the tamping assembly of Cicin in order to prevent damage from overextension.
Regarding claim 9 Cicin as modified above teaches that the respective limit stop device comprises a spindle and a limit stop element arranged to rotate thereon (Lichtberger, paragraph 28, the stop element 30 rotates on a pivot).
Regarding claim 10 Cicin as modified above teaches that the respective limit stop device comprises an adjustable distance element which can be moved by means of an actuating mechanism from a pivoted-out position to a position between the limit stop and the limit stop element (Lichtberger, FIG. 2: 30 is able to pivoted out as claimed; paragraphs 27 & 28).
Claim(s) 12 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicin et al. (CH 650819 A5, herein after referred to as Cicin) in view of AT 522456 B1 (herein after referred to as ‘456).
Regarding claim 12 Cicin does not explicitly teach that one tamping tine of the respective tamping tool is arranged in a tamping tine holder that can be tilted upwards, however, ‘456 does (FIG. 7: 16). 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 tine tilting mechanism of ‘456 with the tamping assembly of Cicin in order to be able to work efficiently in both confined and open spaces without needing two different tamping assemblies.
Regarding claim 13 Cicin does not explicitly teach that a plurality of tamping unit segments are arranged one behind the other and that each tamping unit segment in particular is able to be adjusted in height separately by means of an assigned height-adjustment drive, however ‘456 does (FIG. 8: each instance of 7 & 9). 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 plurality of independently adjustable segments of ‘456 with the tamping assembly of Cicin in order to work at greater speeds by working on multiple sleepers at a time.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicin et al. (CH 650819 A5, herein after referred to as Cicin) in view of AT 522456 B1 (herein after referred to as ‘456) and further in view of Lichtberger (EP 3239398 A1).
Regarding claim 15 Cicin as modified above teaches that the tamping unit segments are arranged one behind the other (‘456, FIG. 8: depicted), but does not explicitly teach a respectively assigned limit stop device is adjusted in at least some of the squeeze drives to adjust to a changed sleeper spacing by moving a distance element between a limit stop and a limit stop element using an actuating mechanism.
However, Lichtberger does teach a respectively assigned limit stop device is adjusted in at least some of the squeeze drives to adjust to a changed sleeper spacing by moving a distance element between a limit stop and a limit stop element using an actuating mechanism (FIG. 2: 7, 9, & 30, paragraphs 27 & 28). 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 used the stop device of Lichtberger in order to adjust the function of the tamping assembly in different conditions.
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 assemblies 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