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 Objections
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: both claim 14 and claim 15 which depends from claim 14 recite the limitation “said first cradle extends cross-wise relative to said first draft sill of said railroad car”, it is assumed that this repetition was a typo and claim 15 will be examined as though this limitation was not present. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. US 9944302 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of application 18184265 is taught by claim 1 of US 9944302 B1, see how a brake component (specifically “a brake-applying tension-bearing linkage connected to a second end of the reversing lever”) is “mounted on […] a lateral side of the car”.
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) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boring et al. (US 8950341 B2, herein after referred to as Boring).
Regarding claim 1 Boring teaches a railroad tank car (FIG. 8: 10) having a side-mounted trackside-operable handbrake installation (FIG. 8: 30 & 32).
Regarding claim 2 Boring teaches that said handbrake is a low-mounted handbrake that is located at a height reachable by an operator standing on the ground (FIG. 8: depicted).
Regarding claim 3 Boring teaches that said handbrake is mounted in a side recess of said tank car (FIG. 8: depicted in a recess).
Regarding claim 5 Boring teaches that said tank car has a tank and said tank has a transverse handrail mounted thereto (FIG. 8: handrail portion of 26).
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) 4, 6, 9, 10, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boring et al. (US 8950341 B2, herein after referred to as Boring) in view of Miltaru (US 6357363 B1).
Regarding claim 4 & 15 Boring teaches railroad car trucks (FIG. 8: 8) for rolling motion along railroad tracks (FIG. 8: depicted suitable for this purpose); a first draft sill extending longitudinally outboard of a first of said trucks (FIG. 8: 20); an end sill is spaced lengthwise outboard of said first cradle and oriented cross-wise relative to said first draft sill (FIG. 4: 22); but does not explicitly teach a tank mounted on first and second cradles; said first cradle extends cross-wise relative to said first draft sill of said railroad car; and said side-mounted trackside-operable handbrake assembly is recessed between said first cradle and said end sill.
However, Miltaru does teach a tank (FIG. 1: 22) mounted on first and second cradles (FIG. 1: 42). 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 tank and cradles of Miltaru with the car of Boring in order to allow for the efficient carrying of liquids as cargo. As a result of the combination said first cradle extends cross-wise relative to said first draft sill of said railroad car and said side-mounted trackside-operable handbrake assembly is recessed between said first cradle and said end sill.
Regarding claims 6 & 17 Boring teaches trucks (FIG. 8: 8), said tank car having a walkway located longitudinally outboard (FIG. 8: 26), and said walkway running transversely across said tank car, but does not teach a tank as part of the tank car.
However, Miltaru does teach a tank (FIG. 1: 22). 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 tank and cradles of Miltaru with the car of Boring in order to allow for the efficient carrying of liquids as cargo.
Regarding claims 9 & 14 Boring teaches that carried upon railroad car trucks for rolling motion along railroad tracks (FIG. 8: 8); a first draft sill extending longitudinally outboard of a first of said trucks (FIG. 8: 20); an end sill oriented cross-wise relative to said first draft sill (FIG. 7: 22); an end sill walkway (FIG. 8: 26); and said end sill walkway surmounts said end sill (FIG. 8: depicted) but does not teach that said tank car has a tank mounted on first and second cradles, said first cradle extends cross-wise relative to said first draft sill of said railroad car; the end sill is spaced lengthwise outboard of said first cradle.
However, Miltaru does teach that said tank car has a tank (FIG. 1: 22) mounted on first and second cradles (FIG. 1: 42). 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 tank and cradles of Miltaru with the car of Boring in order to allow for the efficient carrying of liquids as cargo. As a result of the combination, said first cradle extends cross-wise relative to said first draft sill of said railroad car and that the end sill is spaced lengthwise outboard of said first cradle.
Regarding claim 10 Boring as modified above teaches that said handbrake is a low-mounted handbrake that is located at a height reachable by an operator standing on the ground (Boring, FIG. 8: depicted).
Regarding claim 16 Boring as modified above teaches that said tank car has a tank and said tank has a transverse handrail mounted thereto (FIG. 8: handrail portion of 26).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11-13, 18, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boring et al. (US 8950341 B2, herein after referred to as Boring) in view of Miltaru (US 6357363 B1) and further in view of Kadel et al. (US RE18266 E, herein after referred to as Kadel).
Regarding claim 7 Boring does not teach that said tank car has a tank carried on a pair of first and second tank cradles, said tank cradles being longitudinally spaced apart; said tank car having first and second spaced apart main bolsters, each of said main bolsters being mounted at a respective truck center over a corresponding railroad car truck; each of said cradles being mounted upon a respective one of said main bolsters; and said tank car having jacking pads located at the laterally outermost extremities of said main bolsters.
However, Miltaru does teach that said tank car has a tank (FIG. 1: 22) carried on a pair of first and second tank cradles (FIG. 1: 42), said tank cradles being longitudinally spaced apart (FIG. 1: depicted); said tank car having first and second spaced apart main bolsters (FIG. 1: 36 & 38), each of said main bolsters being mounted at a respective truck center over a corresponding railroad car truck (FIG. 1: depicted over trucks 24); each of said cradles being mounted upon a respective one of said main bolsters (FIG. 1: depicted); but also does not teach that said tank car having jacking pads located at the laterally outermost extremities of said main bolsters. 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 tank and cradles of Miltaru with the car of Boring in order to allow for the efficient carrying of liquids as cargo.
Furthermore, Kadel teaches jacking pads (FIG. 1: 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 jacking pads of Kadel with the rail car of Boring as modified above in order to allow the car to be jacked up for repairs. The jacking pads would be a the laterally outermost extremities of the bolsters as claimed as a result of the combination.
Regarding claim 8 Boring as modified above teaches that said tank car has a side sill (Boring, FIG. 8: 20) extending lengthwise outboard of said bolster (result of the above combinations), said side sill is recessed laterally inboard clear of said jacking pad (result of the above combination).
Regarding claim 11 Boring as modified above teaches that wherein said tank car has first and second spaced apart main bolsters (Miltaru FIG. 1: 36 & 38), each of said main bolsters being mounted at a respective truck center over a corresponding railroad car truck (Miltaru, FIG. 1: depicted over trucks 24); each of said cradles being mounted upon a respective one of said main bolsters (Miltaru, FIG. 1: depicted); but does not teach said tank car having jacking pads located at the laterally outermost extremities of said main bolsters.
However, Kadel teaches jacking pads (FIG. 1: 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 jacking pads of Kadel with the rail car of Boring as modified above in order to allow the car to be jacked up for repairs. The jacking pads would be a the laterally outermost extremities of the bolsters as claimed as a result of the combination.
Regarding claim 12 Boring as modified above teaches that said tank car has a side sill (Boring, FIG. 8: 20) extending lengthwise outboard of said bolster (result of the combination), said side sill is recessed laterally inboard clear of said jacking pad (result of the combination).
Regarding claim 13 Boring as modified above teaches that said handbrake is mounted in a side recess of said tank car (Boring, FIG. 1: depicted) located between said main bolster and said end sill (result of the above combination).
Regarding claim 18 Boring as modified above teaches that said tank car has first and second spaced apart main bolsters (Miltaru, FIG. 1: 36 & 38), each of said main bolsters is mounted at a respective truck center over a corresponding one of said railroad car trucks (Miltaru, FIG. 1: depicted over 24); each of said cradles is mounted upon a respective one of said main bolsters (Miltaru, FIG. 1: depicted); but does not teach said tank car having jacking pads located at the laterally outermost extremities of said main bolsters.
However, Kadel teaches jacking pads (FIG. 1: 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 jacking pads of Kadel with the rail car of Boring as modified above in order to allow the car to be jacked up for repairs. The jacking pads would be a the laterally outermost extremities of the bolsters as claimed as a result of the combination.
Regarding claim 19 Boring as modified above teaches that said tank car has a side sill (Boring, FIG. 8: 20) extending lengthwise outboard of said bolster (result of the combination), said side sill is recessed laterally inboard clear of said jacking pad (result of the combination).
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 rail cars 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, Paul Dickson can be reached on (571) 272-7742. 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 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614