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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 26, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it recites "rotates the tile plate 180 degrees." The record makes clear that "tile plate" is a typographical error.
Suggested Correction: replace "tile plate" with "tie plate."
Claim 1 is further objected to because it recites "an automated tie location and analyzing systems." The singular article and plural noun are grammatically inconsistent, while the specification identifies the intended ATLAS device.
Suggested Correction: replace "systems" with "system," or otherwise amend the phrase to use a grammatically consistent number.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 3 - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Issue
The recited transfer destination sequence supports materially different method steps and does not identify the intended path with reasonable certainty.
Claim Language
Claim 3 recites: "from the storage hopper to the receiving hopper to he storage hopper."
Affected Claims
Claim 3 is affected. Claims 1 and 2 are not rejected on this ground.
Analysis
Inserting the apparently missing letter "t" would produce a storage-hopper-to-receiving-hopper-to-storage-hopper return transfer. Deleting the trailing phrase "to he storage hopper" would instead produce only the storage-hopper-to-receiving-hopper transfer already recited in claim 2. Those alternatives impose different method steps. Because claim 2 next transfers the plates from the receiving hopper to the picking area, the present wording does not make clear whether claim 3 interrupts that sequence with a return transfer or contains duplicated text.
Suggested Correction
Amend claim 3 to state the intended transfer path expressly. If only a storage-hopper-to-receiving-hopper transfer is intended, delete the trailing phrase "to he storage hopper." If a return transfer is intended, correct "he" to "the" and retain language that unambiguously identifies the complete round trip.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 4,974,518 A.
Reference 2 - US 2011/0308058 A1.
Reference 3 - US 2014/0013991 A1.
Reference 4 - US 5,067,412 A.
Reference 5 - US 6,807,909 B1.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), are: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 - Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) A method for placing railroad tie plates, the method comprising:
(L2) (a) transferring a tie plate from a hopper to an orientation station using a magnet affixed to a mechanical arm,
(L3) wherein the hopper is a storage hopper or a receiving hopper;
(L4) (b) orienting the tie plate along one or more of a side axis, a left/right axis, and an up/down axis for correct positioning onto a railroad tie
(L5) using any one or more of a mechanical wiper, a mechanical device that squeezes the tie plate and rotates the tile plate 180 degrees, and a mechanical device that flips the tie plate, respectively; and
(L6) (c) laying the tie plate onto a railroad tie via a conveyor
(L7) with the assistance of an automated tie location and analyzing systems.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses automatic rail-tie-plate setting machine 10 and a method that stores, sorts, senses, inverts, manipulates, and sets tie plates upon railroad ties. (L2) Reference 1 Figures 1-2 disclose crane 42, a mechanical arm carrying electromagnet 44, retrieving tie plates 40 from storage hopper 32 and transferring them to receiving funnel hopper 46 at the lower end 48 of sorting conveyor 50. The conveyor feeds ramp 62, orientation sensor 68, and reorienting mechanism 72. (L3) Reference 1 expressly identifies hopper 32 as a storage hopper for randomly oriented plates. (L4) Reference 1 orientation sensor 68 distinguishes the upper and lower plate surfaces and emits a trigger signal when a plate is upside down; reorienting mechanism 72 then arrests and inverts the plate before it continues down ramp 62 for correct placement. (L5) The claim permits one or more of the correspondingly listed axis and device pairs. Reference 1 stop 74 and mechanical flipper mechanism 76, including flipper panel 80, are triggered to invert an incorrectly oriented plate into the required up/down orientation. This mapping does not rely on Reference 1 for the separately listed wiper or squeeze-and-rotate alternatives. (L6) Reference 2 Figures 47-48 and paragraphs 0104-0107 disclose placing conveyor 72 carrying aligned plates to drop mechanism 74, tie-contact trigger 408, actuators 498 opening outer walls 500, and tie plate 92 dropping directly onto railroad tie 94. (L7) Reference 3 paragraphs 0026 and 0028-0035 disclose work heads 36, tie locator 38 positioned ahead of the work heads, encoder 40, and a computer/controller that stores detected-tie information, determines when a detected tie reaches a work head, and controls the maintenance operation at that tie. Reference 3 expressly discloses that locator 38 may detect tie plate 16 and thereby locate tie 12. Claims 2-3 likewise recite supplying tie-location information to a controller and controlling a work head based on that location and vehicle displacement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's placing-conveyor end release at the output of Reference 1's oriented-plate path. References 1 and 2 address the same railroad-maintenance problem of rapidly orienting and accurately setting heavy tie plates while reducing manual handling. Reference 1 already carries randomly oriented plates from a storage hopper through automatic sorting, top/bottom sensing and flipping, and an on-tie setting mechanism. Reference 2 teaches the known alternative of extending the conveyor path to a tie-responsive end release that drops a plate directly on each tie. The substitution would predictably provide the expressly conveyor-based final placement while retaining Reference 1's upstream hopper, crane, sensing, and flipping functions.
It further would have been obvious to use Reference 3's tie locator 38, encoder 40, and computer/controller to time and position the combined conveyor release at detected ties. Reference 3 teaches that the locator may detect the metal tie plate to locate a tie and that stored tie-location and displacement information controls when a work head operates. Applying that same known control architecture to the combined Reference 1-Reference 2 plate-placement work head would predictably release each oriented plate when the work head reaches a detected tie, improving placement accuracy without changing the ordinary functions of the hopper, crane, orientation devices, conveyor, or controller.
________________________________________
Claim 2 - Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3, and Reference 4
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3, and Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L8) The method of claim 1 further comprising transferring a plurality of tie plates from a sidetrack area to the storage hopper,
(L9) then transferring the tie plates to a receiving hopper,
(L10) then transferring the tie plates to a picking area
(L11) before transferring the tie plate to the orientation station.
Analysis
(L8) Claim 2 includes every limitation of claim 1, mapped above. Reference 4 discloses old tie plates placed on the track bed, crane boom 29 carrying demagnetizable collecting magnet 31, and magnetic pickup of a plurality of plates from that track-bed area for delivery into funnel 27. Reference 1 supplies the expressly recited storage hopper 32. Applying Reference 4's known track-bed magnetic loading step to place the collected plates into Reference 1's storage hopper maps the transfer from the claimed sidetrack area to the storage hopper. (L9) Reference 1 then uses crane 42 and electromagnet 44 to transfer plates from storage hopper 32 to receiving funnel hopper 46. (L10) Reference 1 locates receiving funnel hopper 46 at lower end 48 of sorting conveyor 50. Conveyor pockets receive and select individual plates there, making lower end 48 the area from which plates are picked into the downstream sorting path. (L11) Sorting conveyor 50 carries the selected plates to ramp 62, orientation sensor 68, and reorienting mechanism 72, which collectively form the downstream orientation station.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 4's track-bed crane-and-magnet loading technique to load Reference 1's storage hopper. Both references address automated handling of heavy tie plates during railroad-track work. Reference 4 expressly teaches recovering a plurality of plates from the track bed with a crane-mounted magnet and feeding them into the machine to reduce manual handling. Reference 1 begins with randomly oriented plates already in storage hopper 32. Using Reference 4's known magnetic recovery step as Reference 1's upstream loading step would predictably supply those plates to the storage hopper while leaving Reference 1's storage-to-receiving-to-selection-to-orientation sequence unchanged.
________________________________________
Claim 3 - Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3, and Reference 4
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3, and Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L12) The method of claim 2, wherein the tie plates are transferred from the storage hopper to the receiving hopper to he storage hopper using the same magnet affixed to the same stick and boom of the excavator.
Analysis
(L12) Claim 3 includes every limitation of claims 1 and 2, mapped above. The entered destination phrase is indefinite for the reasons stated under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Under the reasonable interpretation that deletes the malformed duplicated phrase "to he storage hopper," Reference 1 expressly uses the same crane 42 and electromagnet 44 to retrieve tie plates 40 from storage hopper 32 and transfer and release them into receiving funnel hopper 46. Reference 2 further discloses articulated boom 64 with hydraulic cylinders 216/218, first member 222, second member 224, and magnet 234 at the distal end; paragraphs 0100-0101 show that the same boom and magnet lift stack 542 from a pickup location and place it into hopper 68. The articulated first and second members perform the claimed boom-and-stick function. Reference 4 discloses the preceding track-bed transfer by crane boom 29 and affixed collecting magnet 31. Applying Reference 2's articulated boom-and-magnet configuration to the magnetic transfers already taught by References 1 and 4 results in the same magnet on the same articulated boom and stick performing the successive sidetrack-to-storage and storage-to-receiving transfers.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use one articulated boom-mounted magnet of Reference 2 for both the Reference 4 upstream collection step and the Reference 1 storage-to-receiving transfer. Each step moves the same bulk tie plates by a controllable magnetic lifting tool among adjacent collection and hopper locations. Reusing the same movable boom, distal member, and magnet would avoid duplicative lifting assemblies, reduce equipment and maintenance, and predictably perform each disclosed pickup-and-release operation without changing the function of the magnet, hoppers, or downstream plate path.
________________________________________
Claim 4 - Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3, Reference 4, and Reference 5
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, Reference 3, and Reference 4, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim Text
(L12) The method of claim 2,
(L13) wherein the tie plates are transferred by gravity from the receiving hopper to the picking area.
Analysis
(L12) Claim 4 includes every limitation of claims 1 and 2, mapped above. (L13) Reference 1 places receiving funnel hopper 46 at lower end 48 of sorting conveyor 50, where the conveyor pockets receive and select individual plates for the downstream path, but Reference 1 does not expressly characterize that short hopper-to-selection transfer as gravity transfer. Reference 5 expressly teaches in the same tie-plate handling field a downwardly sloping gravity-feed roller conveyor 36. Reference 5 loads plates at upper receiving end 34, permits each plate to gravitate toward the lower end, and separately captures and releases the plates in sequence. Reference 5 claim 9 likewise recites loading tie plates at an upper receiving position so they gravitate to a separately capturing location near the discharge end.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 5's gravity-feed arrangement between Reference 1's receiving funnel hopper 46 and the lower selection or picking portion of conveyor 50. Reference 5 teaches gravity feed specifically for moving railroad tie plates from a receiving position to a location where each plate is separately captured in sequence. Applying that same passive feed to Reference 1's receiving-hopper outlet would predictably move plates to the picking area, reduce powered handling at the hopper outlet, and preserve Reference 1's downstream sorting and orientation functions.
________________________________________
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as depending directly or indirectly from rejected claims 1 and 2, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all limitations of claims 1 and 2 and every intervening claim.
Claim 5 adds a magnet on a single-pick arm transferring a plate from a picking area to a conveyor, followed by a first orientation station using a mechanical wiper. The reviewed art does not disclose that complete inherited sequence.
Claim 6 adds sensing two stacked plates, magnetically lifting the upper plate, and relocating the upper plate behind the lower plate or elsewhere before the lower plate proceeds. The reviewed art does not disclose that sensed magnetic correction in the inherited combination.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 112: 3.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103: 1-4.
Objected-to Claims: 5 and 6.
Allowed Claims: None.
________________________________________
Conclusion
US 4,241,663 was not used because its magnetic pickup wheel lacks the claimed single-pick arm/wiper sequence. US 6,652,217 B2 was not used because its vacuum handler does not magnetically relocate the upper plate. US 9,156,623 B1 was not used because Reference 1 more directly supplies top/bottom sensing and a triggered flipper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights