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 § 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) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8593102 to McGuire et al. (“McGuire”).
PNG
media_image1.png
848
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, McGuire discloses a railcar (power station container 10, Figs. 1–9; the entire station may be transported by rail, Col. 2, lines 56–58) comprising: a bed (bed of container shown in Fig. 1) and
and at least one frame (entire framing assembly of Fig. 1 that supports the solar arrays) containing at least one solar panel (e.g. 24) that is moveably attached to the bed such that, in an opened position, cargo (e.g. batteries 80) can be loaded onto the bed (as evident from Fig. 1), and such that, in a closed position, the at least one frame at least partially covers the cargo (as evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1, wherein a first frame of the at least one frame has a first top portion (portion for example within the annotated rectangle) that is parallel to the bed and two first side portions (one of which is within the annotated circle) that are on opposite long sides of the bed, that are parallel to each other, and that support the first top portion (as evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 2, wherein a second frame of the at least one frame has a second top portion that is parallel to the bed and two second side portions that are on opposite long sides of the bed, that are parallel to each other, and that support the second top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 with corresponding mapping as above for claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 3, wherein a third frame of the at least one frame has a third top portion that is parallel to the bed and two third side portions that are on opposite long sides of the bed, that are parallel to each other, and that support the third top portion, wherein, when in the opened position, the third top portion is at least partially above the first top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 with corresponding mapping as above for claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 4, wherein a fourth frame of the at least one frame has a fourth top portion that is parallel to the bed and two fourth side portions that are on opposite long sides of the bed, that are parallel to each other, and that support the fourth top portion, wherein, when in the opened position, the fourth top portion is at least partially above the second top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 with corresponding mapping as above for claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1, wherein the at least one frame has wheels on which the frame rides in a channel formed in the bed (pair of rollers installed in a compartment, i.e., the frame 72, at a dimension corresponding to the width or length of the solar panel array. The arrays easily slide within a track attached to the sides of the panel arrays. The solar panel array is attached to the frame 72; see Col. 6, lines 22–38).
Regarding claim 7, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1, wherein the at least one frame is attached to the bed by a hinge (hinge, Col. 5, lines 1–14 and Fig. 1) that allows the frame to pivot outward from the center of the bed from the closed to the opened position (Col. 5, lines 1–14 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 7, wherein the at least one frame includes a top portion (frame 44, Fig. 1) that covers the cargo when in the closed position (panels are able to fold one on top of the other on the upper surface of the top panel of the container, Col. 5, lines 10–14) and that is configured to rotate about an axis parallel to a long side of the bed (rotate about an axis between posts 32, 34, which is along a long side of the bed; Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 1–14).
Regarding claim 10, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1, further comprising an actuator that causes the at least one frame to move (container may be mounted on wheels (not shown), as a towed vehicle or it may be self-powered with a driving station, Col. 6, lines 59–61).
Regarding claim 11, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1, wherein the cargo is a cargo container (batteries 80 may be housed on rack 90, Col. 7, lines 8–10; Figs. 2 and 3A).
12. The railcar of claim 1, wherein the cargo is two stacked cargo containers.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire.
Regarding claim 8, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 7, wherein the at least one frame includes a top portion that covers the cargo when in the closed position and that is configured to slide parallel to a top surface of the bed (e.g. see col. 6 ln 7-39). While this appears to be combining different embodiments, 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 the features of the other embodiments with that of the first with the motivation of stowing the arrays to avoid environment damage.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire in view of US 10384592 to Royt.
Regarding claim 12, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1. McGuire fails to explicitly disclose wherein the item is two stacked cargo containers. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of railcar bodies, Royt discloses such (see Fig. 1). 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 the features of Royt with the motivation of increasing cargo capacity.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire in view of GB 2502820 to Dames et al. (“Dames”).
Regarding claim 13, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1. McGuire fails to explicitly disclose the railcar further comprising an inductive coupling for transferring power from the railcar. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of railcar bodies, Dames discloses such (see Abstract, Fig. 3A). 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 the features of Dames with the motivation of advancing the vehicle along a trajectory in a controlled manner.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire in view of US 6494146 to Landrum et al. (“Landrum”).
Regarding claim 14, McGuire discloses the railcar of claim 1. McGuire fails to explicitly disclose where the railcar is a center-beam railcar. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of railcar bodies, Landrum discloses such (see Fig. 1, col. 3, ln 48-55). 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 the features of Landrum with the motivation of reducing weight of the overall railcar with bulkheads.
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 Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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