DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/18/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 11/22/2023 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/18/2024 are acknowledged.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Loy (US 2021/0404121) in view of Furst (US 2021/0332532).
Regarding claim 1, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A turnout for a track system for rail vehicles, the track system having a main track and at least one branch track that joins the main track, wherein the main track and the branch track at least in regions have in each case at least two rails, wherein the rails are fastened on sleepers and the sleepers are mounted on a ballast bed, wherein disposed between the sleepers and the ballast bed, on lower sides of the sleepers that point towards the ballast bed, are in each case sleeper pads which have in each case at least one elastomer layer, the turnout comprising: a turnout frog tip in which the rails of the main track pointing towards the branch track and the rails of the branch track pointing towards the main track converge; a turnout frog region extends from the turnout frog tip in mutually opposite directions; the sleepers in the turnout frog region comprise inherently continuous sleepers on which the rails of the main track as well as the rails of the branch track are fastened; wherein the turnout frog region, proceeding from the turnout frog tip, extends in the mutually opposite directions in each case at most over twenty-five successive sleepers; Loy, Abstract, Paras. [0001]-[0003], [0010]-[0020], [0032]-[0040], and Figs. 1, 4, teaches a turnout for a track system for rail vehicles, the turnout comprising a main track and at least one branch track that joins the main track, where the track have at least two rails. The rails are mounted on sleepers and the sleepers are mounted on a ballast bed, disposed between the sleepers and the ballast bed, on lower sides of the sleepers, are sleeper pads which have at least one elastomer layer. A turnout frog region in which the rails of the main track and branch track converge (the frog area 16 and frog 17). The sleepers in the turnout frog region comprise inherently continuous sleepers on which the rails of the main track and branch track are fastened, extending in mutually opposite directions over successive sleepers. And further teaches varying the bedding modulus (softness) of the elastomer layers to counteract tilting effects caused by eccentric loading, specifically noting the frog region.
Loy teaches adjusting the softness of the elastomer pads to manage loads in the turnout, but does not explicitly disclose:
the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region are softer than the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads in regions of the turnout in front of and behind the turnout frog region.
However, Furst teaches:
Furst, Paras. [0009]-[0010], [0038], [0059], teaches a turnout arrangement utilizing elastically supported bases. Furst shows that discontinuities in the stiffness of a track during transitions cause impacts and jolts, and teaches adapting the elasticity longitudinally along the course of the track, and disclosing that the elastic layer of one turnout base can have different elasticity characteristics (different stiffness) than the elastic layer of an adjacent turnout base. And further teaches selecting the stiffness of the elastic layers in different areas to obtain a smooth transition without discontinuity between track sections.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elastically padded turnout of Loy to incorporate the longitudinal stiffness profiling as taught by Furst, to make the continuous elastomer pads in the heavy loaded frog region softer than the adjacent track regions, in order to improve driving comfort and prevent uneven rail.
Regarding claim 2, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy discloses:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the turnout frog region, proceeding from the turnout frog tip, extends in the mutually opposite directions in each case at most over fifteen successive ones of the sleepers. Loy, Para. [0032], and Fig. 1 discloses a turnout frog region (frog area 16) that proceeds from the turnout frog tip and extends in mutually opposite direction over successive continuous sleepers up to the last continuous sleeper 20.
While Loy does not explicitly state that the turnout frog region extends “at most over fifteen successive ones of the sleepers”, the schematic drawings (Fig. 1) shows a frog region encompassing a small number continuous sleepers fewer than fifteen in each direction. Furthermore, optimizing the exact number of continuous sleepers that span the frog region is a matter of routine engineering and design choice. The number of sleepers required is dictated by parameters of the track and the design.
Regarding claim 3, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region at a measurement frequency of 10 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in a range from 0.088 N/mm3 to 0.186 N/mm3. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0014], teaches that “the elastomer layer of the respective sleeper pad has a bedding modulus in the range from 0.02 N/mm.sup.3 (Newton per cubic millimeter) to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3, preferentially of 0.1 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.5 N/mm.sup.3, particularly preferably of 0.15 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.4 N/mm.sup.3”. Loy, Para. [0043], teaches that “the bedding modulus of the elastomer layers 9 of the sleeper pads 8 in this switch area 14 is favorably in the range from 0.1 to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3”.
While Loy does not explicitly state that “a measurement frequency of 10 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in a range from 0.088 N/mm3 to 0.186 N/mm3.”, the measurement frequency is a standard testing parameter to the dynamic response of the material to train loads. The bedding modulus is a known result to control the amount of settling a track experiences under load.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 3, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region at a measurement frequency of 20 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in the range from 0.17 N/mm3 to 0.42 N/mm3. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy discloses turning the bedding modulus of the sleeper pads to counteract tilting and control subsidence. Loy, Para. [0014], teaches that “the elastomer layer of the respective sleeper pad has a bedding modulus in the range from 0.02 N/mm.sup.3 (Newton per cubic millimeter) to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3, preferentially of 0.1 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.5 N/mm.sup.3, particularly preferably of 0.15 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.4 N/mm.sup.3”. Loy, Para. [0043], teaches that “the bedding modulus of the elastomer layers 9 of the sleeper pads 8 in this switch area 14 is favorably in the range from 0.1 to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3”.
While Loy does not explicitly state that “a measurement frequency of 20 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in the range from 0.17 N/mm3 to 0.42 N/mm3”, measuring dynamic bedding modulus at standard frequencies such as 20 Hz, is a standard industry practice for characterizing elastomeric track components under simulated train loads. In cases where the claimed range and the prior art range overlaps, the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3-4. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 4, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region at a measurement frequency of 160 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in the range from 0.21 N/mm3 to 0.53 N/mm3. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy discloses utilizing specific bedding modulus for the elastomer layers to manage dynamic track loads. Loy, Para. [0014], teaches that “the elastomer layer of the respective sleeper pad has a bedding modulus in the range from 0.02 N/mm.sup.3 (Newton per cubic millimeter) to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3, preferentially of 0.1 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.5 N/mm.sup.3, particularly preferably of 0.15 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.4 N/mm.sup.3”. Loy, Para. [0043], teaches that “the bedding modulus of the elastomer layers 9 of the sleeper pads 8 in this switch area 14 is favorably in the range from 0.1 to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3”.
While Loy does not explicitly tie the modulus ranges to a specific dynamic measurement frequency of 160 Hz, the measurement frequency is a standard testing condition used in the railway industry to evaluate the acoustic and high-frequency vibration damping characteristics of track components. In cases where the claimed range and the prior art range overlaps, the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3-5. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 5, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in a region in front of and behind the turnout frog region at the respective measurement frequencies have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus which is higher by at least a factor of 1.25 than the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy explicitly defines the mathematical ratio of stiffness between the differing sleeping pads. Loy, Para. [0011], teaches “In terms of the difference it is favorably provided that the bedding moduli of the elastomer layers of the at least two different sleeper pads deviate from one another by an amount of at least 25% of the larger bedding modulus and/or that the stiffnesses of the elastomer layers ….”. Therefore, Loy’s explicit disclosure satisfies the claimed limitation. If the difference between the two moduli is 25% of the larger modulus, then the smaller modulus is 75% of the larger modulus or the larger modulus is equal to the smaller modulus divided by 0.75. the ratio of 1/0.75 is equal to a factor of 1.33. the stiffness deviation that results in the harder pad being at least 1.33 times stiffer than the softer pad, then a dynamic bedding modulus which is higher by “at least a factor of 1.25”, satisfies the claim limitation.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 3, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in a region in front of and behind the turnout frog region at the measurement frequency of 10 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus which is higher by at least a factor of 1.25 than the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy explicitly defines the mathematical ratio of stiffness between the differing sleeping pads. Loy, Para. [0011], teaches the mathematical ratio required by the claim. Loy states that the bedding moduli of the different sleeper pads “deviate from one another by an amount of at least 25% of the larger bedding modulus”. Therefore, the larger modulus is 1.33 times the smaller modulus which teaches a stiffness differential that is higher by “at least a factor of 1.25”.
Applying the 25% stiffness deviation taught by Loy (a factor of at least 1.25) to the longitudinal stiffness of Furst, and verifying the differential at a standard dynamic measurement frequency of 10 Hz, would result in a difference in damping characteristics between the transitional area and the frog region to smooth the rail subsidence.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads comprise at least one of polyurethane or natural rubber. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0013], teaches “Particularly preferably it is provided that the elastomer layer of the respective intermediate layer and/or the elastomer layer of the respective sleeper pad comprises polyurethane or rubber or a mixture with polyurethane and/or rubber”, which identifies both polyurethane and natural rubber, as the preferred material.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the respective sleeper pads, in addition to the elastomer layer, comprise at least one of a) a binding layer which points towards the sleeper, adapted for fastening the sleeper pad to the sleeper, or b) a protective layer which points towards the ballast bed. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0003], [0010], teaches “a multi-layered construction” where it teaches an arrangement having “on an elastic layer of the sleeper pad on the side facing the sleeper a randomly oriented fiber layer and ….. The randomly oriented fiber layer serves for fixing the sleeper pad on sleepers cast from concrete”. The “fixing” layer matches the claimed “binding layer”. Also teaches “The reinforcement layer on the other side of the sleeper pad limits the entering of the ballast of the ballast bed into the sleeper pad to the desired dimension”. The “reinforcement layer”, matches the claimed “protective layer”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region have in a direction of a longitudinal extent of the respective sleeper in each case a central region and adjacent thereto two outer regions. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0040], and Fig. 4, teaches that in order to counteract tilting, the sleeper pads can have regions along the longitudinal direction of the sleeper that differ in properties. Specifically referring to the frog area, discloses that “… the regions 11 of the elastomer layer 9 of the sleeper pad 8 outside are formed harder than the middle region 12 of the elastomer layer 9 of the sleeper pad 8”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 10, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region are in each case softer in the central region than in the two outer regions. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0040], and Fig. 4, teaches dividing the pad along the longitudinal direction of the sleeper into outside regions and a middle region. And explicitly teaches that “… the regions 11 of the elastomer layer 9 of the sleeper pad 8 outside are formed harder than the middle region 12 of the elastomer layer 9 of the sleeper pad 8”. Since the outer regions are harder, then the central region is softer. And expressly teaches that the sleeper pad where the middle region is softer than the surrounding (outer) regions which meets the claim language.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region at a measurement frequency of 20 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in the range from 0.17 N/mm3 to 0.42 N/mm3. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0014], [0043], and Figs. 1-4, teaches tuning the bedding modulus of the sleeper pads to manage dynamic track loads. Specifically teaches that the elastomer layer of the sleeper pad has a bedding modulus in the “preferential” range of 0.1 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.5 N/mm.sup.3, and “particularly preferably of 0.15 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.4 N/mm.sup.3”. Also teaches that the bedding modulus of the sleeper pad is in the range of “0.2 to 0.3 N/mm.sup.3”. the claimed range of “0.17 N/mm3 to 0.42 N/mm3” overlaps with Loy’s preferred range of “0.15 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.4 N/mm.sup.3”. In cases where the claimed range and the prior art range overlaps, the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 12, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in a region in front of and behind the turnout frog region at the measurement frequency of 20 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus which is higher by at least a factor of 1.25 than the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers (5) in the turnout frog region. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0011], and Figs. 1-4, teaches that the bedding moduli of the different sleeper pads deviate from one another by at least 25% of the larger bedding modulus, which shows that the larger modulus is at least 1.33 times the smaller modulus. Therefore, teaches a stiffness differential that is higher by “at least a factor of 1.25”. applying the specific 25% stiffness deviation as taught by Loy to the longitudinal stiffness of Furst, verifying the differential at a standard dynamic measurement frequency of 20Hz, ensures a sufficient difference in vibration damping and load distribution between the transition areas and the softer frog region.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claim 1. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 1, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region at a measurement frequency of 160 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus in the range from 0.21 N/mm3 to 0.53 N/mm3. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0014], [0043], and Figs. 1-4, teaches utilizing specific bedding moduli for the elastomer layers to manage dynamic track loads. And teaches that the elastomer layer of the sleeper pad can have a bedding modulus in the range of 0.02 N/mm.sup.3 (Newton per cubic millimeter) to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3, preferentially of 0.1 N/mm.sup.3 to 0.5 N/mm.sup.3. and further teaches that the bedding modulus of the sleeper pad is in the range from 0.3 to 0.6 N/mm.sup.3. In cases where the claimed range and the prior art range overlaps, the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Loy in view of Furst discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Loy and Furst disclose:
The turnout according to Claim 14, wherein the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in a region in front of and behind the turnout frog region at the measurement frequency of 160 Hz have in each case a dynamic bedding modulus which is higher by at least a factor of 1.25 than the respective elastomer layers of the respective sleeper pads of the sleepers in the turnout frog region. Loy in view of Furst discloses the turnout of claim 1, as discussed above.
Loy, Para. [0011], [0043], and Figs. 1-4, teaches the mathematical ratio required by the claim. Loy states that the bedding moduli of the different sleeper pads deviate from one another by at least 25% of the larger bedding modulus, which shows that the larger modulus is at least 1.33 times the smaller modulus. Therefore, teaches a stiffness differential that is higher by “at least a factor of 1.25”. applying the specific 25% stiffness deviation as taught by Loy to the longitudinal stiffness of Furst, verifying the differential at a standard dynamic measurement frequency of 20Hz, ensures a sufficient difference in high frequency structure borne noise attenuation and vibration damping between the transition areas and the softer frog region.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Hein (US 2007/0007394) teaches a railroad turnout lift frog has a combination tread and flange bearing design that uses two separate castings to form the lift frog and securely bolt it to the main rail.
Pilesi (US 2004/0084547) teaches railroad ties used in a turnout, are spaced at predetermined intervals below the rails.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights