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 .
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to applicant’s filing dated 12/01/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-22 are currently pending. The Final mailed on 07/15/2025 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1 and in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1.
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) 1, 6, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, and in view of in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Martin 079’ discloses a system comprising:
a computing device associated with a rail car, the computing device comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when read by the processor,
cause the computing device to (Processor and memory – See at least ¶24):
receive an indication of an application of the handbrake (A brake monitoring device is installed preferably in the handbrake linkage to monitor the force applied by the handbrake – See at least ¶22);
determine, based on applying a debouncing algorithm to the indication, that the application occurred (Once the monitoring device powers up to take a reading of the load on the handbrake, numerous samples can be taken and averaged. Debounce circuits to filter out noise as is known in the art can be used. The averaged reading is compared to a threshold value indicative of the force required to apply the handbrakes – See at least ¶39); and
determine, based on a distance measurement associated with the application, a magnitude of the braking event (Thus the monitoring device obtains information related to the status of the handbrake and which can be used to determine additional information related to the status of the handbrake, e.g., the percentage of maximum braking force applied – See at least ¶25).
Martin 079’ fails to explicitly disclose a magnetic monitoring associated with a handbrake, wherein the magnetic monitoring device is fixably attached to a bellcrank of the rail car using a multi-piece bracket and receive, from the magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake.
However, Martin 979’ teaches:
a magnetic monitoring device associated with a handbrake (The device includes a sensing component mounted near the railcar handbrake. A magnet is mounted on the handbrake bell crank or operating chain at a position such that when the handbrake is engaged, the mounted magnet is sensed by the sensing component – See at least ¶9 and 21); and
receive, from the magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake (The proximity of magnet, will be sensed by sensing component. In turn, a signal that the handbrake has been engaged will be sent by sensing component – See at least ¶22); and
wherein the magnetic monitoring device is fixably attached to a bellcrank of the rail car using a multi-piece bracket (Accordingly, a prearranged level of magnetic field sensing by the sensing component will indicate that the handbrake is engaged. Alternatively, the sensing component can be located on the handbrake bell crank or chain and the magnet can be mounted on a railcar structure near the railcar hand brake – See at least ¶9. Each railcar would have its own handbrake, which typically includes a hand operated handle attached to the end of the railcar – See at least ¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin 079’ and include the feature of a magnetic monitoring device in a fixed position with a handbrake, and receive, from the magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake, as taught by Martin 979’, to provide an alert when the car is in motion while the handbrake is applied (See at least ¶2).
The combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ fail to disclose wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted.
However, Culbertson teaches wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted (In a specific embodiment of the foregoing assembly, the first latch includes a first bar that selectively engages a first slot in the first bracket, which latches the handhold at the deployed position. In addition, the second latch includes a second bar that selectively engages a second slot in the first bracket – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ and include the feature of wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted, as taught by Culbertson, to provide a more sufficient flexible rail car system.
Regarding claim 6, Martin 079’, as modified, discloses cause the computing device to associate the application with a location determined by a global positioning system device (Global positioning system – See at least ¶41).
Regarding claim 7, Martin 079’, as modified, discloses cause the computing device to determine, based on the debounce algorithm, that the indication was not caused by an impact event (Once the monitoring device powers up to take a reading of the load on the handbrake, numerous samples can be taken and averaged. Debounce circuits to filter out noise as is known in the art can be used. The averaged reading is compared to a threshold value indicative of the force required to apply the handbrakes – See at least ¶39).
Regarding claim 21, Martin 079’, as modified, discloses wherein the multi-piece bracket is adjustable after installation (In the embodiment described above and shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, it is connected using the devises at one end to a link of the chain which is connected to the bell crank, and at the other end to the top rod. The devises allow easy installation of the monitoring device in the field – See at least ¶36).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, in view of in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gregar et al., US 20120204655 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and Gregar, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic monitoring device comprises a reed switch.
However, Gregar teaches wherein the magnetic monitoring device comprises a reed switch (It is further presently preferred for the sensor to be of a reed switch type with the sensor target essentially being at least partially a magnet that causes the internal contacts of the switch to pull together and complete electrical circuit – See at least ¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of wherein the magnetic monitoring device comprises a reed switch, as taught by Gregar, to generate a control signal in response to sensing or not sensing the sensor target.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, in view of in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1, in view of Gregar et al., US 20120204655 A1, as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson, Gregar, and LeFebvre, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and Gregar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake lever, a handbrake sheave wheel, a handbrake brake rod.
However, LeFebvre teaches wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake brake rod (The WSN is used for sensing a parameter to be monitored status (e.g., position of a hand brake) – See at least ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and Gregar and include the feature of wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake brake rod, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, in view of in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zahid Mian, US 20170210401 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and Mian, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device.
However, Mian teaches cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device (the switch plate can comprise a magnet and the sensor node can include a magnetic reed switch – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device, as taught by Mian, to recognize and alert on incipient disasters and therefore possibly prevent derailments (See at least ¶3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device.
However, Mian teaches a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device (magnet and the sensor node can include a magnetic reed switch – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device, as taught by Mian, to recognize and alert on incipient disasters and therefore possibly prevent derailments (See at least ¶3).
Claim(s) 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, in view of in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1 and in view of LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and LeFebvre, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Martin 079’ discloses a computer-implemented method for detecting a rail car event, comprising:
determining, an indication of an application of a handbrake (A brake monitoring device is installed preferably in the handbrake linkage to monitor the force applied by the handbrake – See at least ¶22);
receiving the indication of the application of the handbrake (A brake monitoring device is installed preferably in the handbrake linkage to monitor the force applied by the handbrake – See at least ¶22);
determining, based on applying a debouncing algorithm to the indication, that the indication was not consistent with the application (Once the monitoring device powers up to take a reading of the load on the handbrake, numerous samples can be taken and averaged. Debounce circuits to filter out noise as is known in the art can be used. The averaged reading is compared to a threshold value indicative of the force required to apply the handbrakes – See at least ¶39);
determining, based on an acceleration measurement exceeding a threshold, that an impact event occurred (Thus the monitoring device obtains information related to the status of the handbrake and which can be used to determine additional information related to the status of the handbrake, e.g., the percentage of maximum braking force applied – See at least ¶25).
Martin 079’ fails to explicitly disclose determining, using a magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake.
However, Martin 979’ teaches determining, using a magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake, wherein the magnetic monitoring device is fixably attached to a bellcrank (The device includes a sensing component mounted near the railcar handbrake. A magnet is mounted on the handbrake bell crank or operating chain at a position such that when the handbrake is engaged, the mounted magnet is sensed by the sensing component – See at least ¶9 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin 079’ and include the feature of determining, using a magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake, as taught by Martin 979’, to provide an alert when the car is in motion while the handbrake is applied (See at least ¶2).
The combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ fail to disclose wherein the magnetic monitoring device is fixably attached to a bellcrank using a slotted, multi-piece bracket.
However, Culbertson teaches wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted (In a specific embodiment of the foregoing assembly, the first latch includes a first bar that selectively engages a first slot in the first bracket, which latches the handhold at the deployed position. In addition, the second latch includes a second bar that selectively engages a second slot in the first bracket – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ and include the feature of wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted, as taught by Culbertson, to provide a more sufficient flexible rail car system.
The combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ fails to explicitly disclose recording a location associated with the impact event.
However, LeFebvre teaches recording a location associated with the impact event (CMU on each railcar is capable of supporting an optional global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor to determine location, of railcar. This information can be used to determine whether WSNs should be looking for certain types of events, i.e. impact event – See at least ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ and include the feature of recording a location associated with the impact event, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a reed switch.
However, LeFebvre teaches cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a reed switch (In addition, the sensor may be a type of switch, including, for example, reed switches – See at least ¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a reed switch, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake lever, a handbrake sheave wheel, a handbrake brake rod.
However, LeFebvre teaches wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake brake rod (The WSN is used for sensing a parameter to be monitored status (e.g., position of a hand brake) – See at least ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake brake rod, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose determining, based on comparing the acceleration measurement with a historical acceleration measurement, a damping deficiency.
However, LeFebvre teaches determining, based on comparing the acceleration measurement with a historical acceleration measurement, a damping deficiency (Here, accelerometer passes data on to three sensor sections. The first section looks at data from the vertical direction and uses Vertical Derailment Filter to extract the characteristic frequencies of a derailment. Derailment events are detected in Derailment RMS Detector when the RMS value of the filtered data exceeds a derailment threshold – See at least ¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of determining, based on comparing the acceleration measurement with a historical acceleration measurement, a damping deficiency, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Regarding claim 15, Martin 079’ discloses determining an indication of an application of a handbrake (A brake monitoring device is installed preferably in the handbrake linkage to monitor the force applied by the handbrake – See at least ¶22).
Martin 079’ fails to explicitly disclose determining, using a magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake.
However, Martin 979’ teaches determining, using a magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake, wherein the magnetic monitoring device is fixably attached to a bellcrank (The device includes a sensing component mounted near the railcar handbrake. A magnet is mounted on the handbrake bell crank or operating chain at a position such that when the handbrake is engaged, the mounted magnet is sensed by the sensing component – See at least ¶9 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin 079’ and include the feature of determining, using a magnetic monitoring device, an indication of an application of a handbrake, as taught by Martin 979’, to provide an alert when the car is in motion while the handbrake is applied (See at least ¶2).
The combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ fail to disclose wherein the magnetic monitoring device is fixably attached to a bellcrank using a slotted, multi-piece bracket.
However, Culbertson teaches wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted (In a specific embodiment of the foregoing assembly, the first latch includes a first bar that selectively engages a first slot in the first bracket, which latches the handhold at the deployed position. In addition, the second latch includes a second bar that selectively engages a second slot in the first bracket – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ and include the feature of wherein the multi-piece bracket is slotted, as taught by Culbertson, to provide a more sufficient flexible rail car system.
The combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ fails to explicitly disclose determining, by a longitudinal accelerometer and based on an acceleration measurement exceeding a threshold, that an impact event occurred; and recording a location associated with the impact event.
However, LeFebvre teaches:
determining, by a longitudinal accelerometer and based on an acceleration measurement exceeding a threshold, that an impact event occurred (Longitudinal Impact—A longitudinal impact occurs when an acceleration is detected along the length of railcar – See at least ¶64. A vertical extreme vehicle dynamics event occurs when an acceleration is detected in the vertical direction of railcar, and is regarded as a medium priority type of event. An event is detected by a peak acceleration threshold being exceeded by an acceleration along the vertical axis – See at least ¶66); and
recording a location associated with the impact event (CMU on each railcar is capable of supporting an optional global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor to determine location, of railcar. This information can be used to determine whether WSNs should be looking for certain types of events, i.e. impact event – See at least ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’ and Martin 979’ and include the feature of recording a location associated with the impact event, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Regarding claim 16, Martin 079’ discloses cause the computing device to receive an indication of an application of the handbrake (A brake monitoring device is installed preferably in the handbrake linkage to monitor the force applied by the handbrake – See at least ¶22); and determine, based on the debounce algorithm, that the indication was not caused by an impact event (Once the monitoring device powers up to take a reading of the load on the handbrake, numerous samples can be taken and averaged. Debounce circuits to filter out noise as is known in the art can be used. The averaged reading is compared to a threshold value indicative of the force required to apply the handbrakes – See at least ¶39).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake lever, a handbrake sheave wheel, a handbrake brake rod.
However, LeFebvre teaches wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake brake rod (The WSN is used for sensing a parameter to be monitored status (e.g., position of a hand brake) – See at least ¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of wherein the reed switch is placed in a fixed position associated with at least one of: a handbrake brake rod, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Regarding claim 19, Martin 079’, as modified, discloses determining, based on feedback from a global positioning system device, the location (Global positioning system – See at least ¶41).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal accelerometer is mounted to an end sill of a rail car.
However, LeFebvre teaches wherein the longitudinal accelerometer is mounted to an end sill of a rail car (Longitudinal Impact—A longitudinal impact occurs when an acceleration is detected along the length of railcar – See at least ¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson and include the feature of wherein the longitudinal accelerometer is mounted to an end sill of a rail car, as taught by LeFebvre, to predict or timely detect anomalous operational conditions (See at least ¶6).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1, in view of LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767 A1, as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Zahid Mian, US 20170210401 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson, LeFebvre and Mian, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and LeFebvre fails to explicitly disclose generating the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device, wherein the magnetic monitoring device comprises: a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device.
However, Mian teaches generating the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device, wherein the magnetic monitoring device comprises: a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device (the switch plate can comprise a magnet and the sensor node can include a magnetic reed switch – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and LeFebvre and include the feature of cause the computing device to generate the indication based on feedback from a magnetic monitoring device, as taught by LeFebvre, to recognize and alert on incipient disasters and therefore possibly prevent derailments (See at least ¶3).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and LeFebvre fails to explicitly disclose a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device.
However, Mian teaches cause the one or more processors to further perform steps comprising a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device (the switch plate can comprise a magnet and the sensor node can include a magnetic reed switch – See at least ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and LeFebvre and include the feature of cause the one or more processors to further perform steps comprising a magnet mounting bracket, and a handbrake remote monitoring device, as taught by Mian, to recognize and alert on incipient disasters and therefore possibly prevent derailments (See at least ¶3).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 20150232079 A1, in view of Martin et al., US 20140060979 A1, in view of Culbertson et al., US 20180050707 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Daniel James Dickenson, US 20140263895 A1, hereinafter referred to as Martin 079’, Martin 979’, Culbertson and Dickenson, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’ and Culbertson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the multi-piece bracket fixably attaches the magnetic monitoring device to the bellcrank using one or more of slotted holes, fasteners, or welds.
However, Dickenson teaches wherein the multi-piece bracket fixably attaches the magnetic monitoring device to the bellcrank using one or more of fasteners (The magnetic bracket may be clipped into a vehicle chassis by removably inserting the clips into a slot of the vehicle chassis. A body panel such as a headliner having a magnetic fastener attached to the body panel may then be magnetically self-aligned and removably attached to the magnetic portion of the base – See at least ¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Martin 079’, Martin 979’, and Culbertson and include the feature of wherein the multi-piece bracket fixably attaches the magnetic monitoring device to the bellcrank using one or more of fasteners, as taught by Dickenson, to provide a more sufficient flexible rail car system (See at least ¶15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665