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 (IDS) submitted on 08/30/202 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of independent claims 1, 13, and 16 recites “the donor car” in the limitation:
– Claim 1: “wherein the underframe construction has a center sill design different from the center sill design of the donor car”
– Claim 13: “wherein the central center sill portion type differs from the end portion type” is preceded by “providing an existing railcar” but later refers to “the donor car” in the specification, not in the claim; the claim relies on “the existing railcar” only, while the specification uses “donor car,” creating ambiguity as to which structure is being referenced.
– Claim 16: “wherein the underframe construction has a center sill design different from the center sill design of the donor car”
In the claims, “donor car” has no explicit antecedent basis. The only antecedent term is “an existing railcar,” and the relationship between “the donor car” and “the existing railcar” is not explicitly defined within the claims. It is unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art whether “donor car” is intended to be synonymous with “existing railcar,” to refer to a specific subset of existing railcars, or to some other car in a fleet from which parts are harvested.
Because the “center sill design of the donor car” is used to define the required difference in center sill design between the existing railcar and the “underframe construction,” the lack of clarity as to which structure is the “donor car” renders the scope of the claims uncertain.
Suggested amendment (for clarity, not required verbatim):
– In claims 1, 13, and 16, replace “the donor car” with “the existing railcar” or introduce “donor car” with explicit antecedent basis, for example: “providing an existing railcar (a donor car) with a pair of truck assemblies…” and then “different from the center sill design of the donor car.”
Claim(s) 5 and 20 are 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites:
“wherein the forming of the underframe construction which includes forming a through sill center sill design includes a fabricated through center sill.”
Claim 20 recites the same language in the context of claim 19.
The nested use of “includes” in “the forming of the underframe construction which includes forming a through sill center sill design includes a fabricated through center sill” is grammatically ambiguous. It is unclear whether:
The underframe construction “includes” a through-sill center sill, and that through-sill center sill “includes” a fabricated through center sill;
The “forming” step has multiple sub-steps, one of which is “forming a through sill center sill design” and another of which is “forming a fabricated through center sill,” or
The “through sill center sill design” is required to be specifically “fabricated,” i.e., the term “fabricated” is merely characterizing the same through sill.
A person of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether the claims require (a) a single fabricated through-sill center sill, (b) a through-sill center sill plus a separate fabricated center sill, or (c) a fabrication process step in addition to formation of a through sill.
Suggested amendment:
– Replace the ambiguous phrase with clearer structure, e.g., “wherein the underframe construction includes a fabricated through center sill” or “wherein the through sill center sill is a fabricated through center sill.”
Claim(s) 12 and 15 are 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 15 recite:
“wherein the modified railcar is a stub sill hopper railcar having two sloping end sheets for the end hoppers and wherein the stub sill is cut to form an angle that is substantially perpendicular to the angle of an adjacent end sheet.”
Several aspects of this language introduce ambiguity:
“Angle of an adjacent end sheet” is unclear. An “end sheet” is a planar plate; the “angle of an end sheet” could refer to its tilt relative to horizontal, the acute angle between the end sheet and a floor sheet, or some other angle defined by two surfaces associated with the end sheet.
“Substantially perpendicular to the angle of an adjacent end sheet” compares two “angles,” not two planes or two lines. It is unclear whether the claim intends the cut surface of the stub sill to be substantially perpendicular to the plane of the end sheet, to a line normal to the end sheet, or to some other geometric reference.
The specification describes “substantially perpendicular (+/−10 degrees)” between the cut plane and the end sheet. However, this definition is not reflected in the claim language, and the claim’s formulation as “substantially perpendicular to the angle of an adjacent end sheet” fails to clearly convey the intended geometry.
Because the geometric relationship defines the load path between the stub sill and the end hopper structure, the ambiguity in the angular relationship renders the scope of the claims uncertain.
Suggested amendment:
– Clarify the relationship in terms of planes or surfaces rather than “angle of an end sheet,” e.g., “wherein the stub sill is cut to define a cut face forming an angle that is substantially perpendicular (+/−10 degrees) to the plane of the adjacent sloping end sheet.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are directed to substantially the same method of modification differing primarily in that claim 1’s underframe center sill design includes an additional fish-belly option, whereas claim 16 omits that option. The presence of two near-duplicate independent claims is not per se improper but may be streamlined for clarity and compactness. Examiner suggests that applicant consider consolidating or clearly differentiating the scopes, for example, by cancelling one independent claim or rewriting it in dependent form if appropriate. LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1: US 2021/0009169 A1 Title: Method and cast components for cold formed center sill rail car modification programs and railcars formed thereby REFERENCE 2: US 3,238,899 Title: Railway car underframe construction REFERENCE 3: US 7,856,931 B2 Title: Center sill for railroad freight 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.
CLAIM 13 – REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) AS ANTICIPATED BY REFERENCE 1 (US 2021/0009169 A1)
──────────── CLAIM 13
A method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar comprising the steps of:
Providing an existing railcar with a through center sill design of one of i) a cold formed center sill, ii) a hot rolled center sill and iii) a fabricated center sill;
Removing an upper portion of the existing railcar;
Forming an underframe construction including a center sill design comprising end portions which are of one of i) a cold formed center sill, ii) a hot rolled center sill and iii) a fabricated center sill and a central center sill portion which is one of i) a cold formed center sill, ii) a hot rolled center sill and iii) a fabricated center sill, wherein the central center sill portion type differs from the end portion type; and transition castings transitioning from the end portions to the central portions;
Forming an upper body of the modified railcar; and
Attaching the upper body of the modified railcar to the underframe construction. ────────────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13 OVER REFERENCE 1
Limitation 1: “Providing an existing railcar with a through center sill design of one of i) a cold formed center sill, ii) a hot rolled center sill and iii) a fabricated center sill;”
Reference 1 discloses an existing railcar 60 (a BETHGON II type coal car) including a through center sill 32 extending the length of the car. The underframe uses a cold formed center sill 32 running the length of the car with draft sills (draft arms) 34 at each end. The existing car 60 is expressly described as having a through center sill (center sill 32 extending through between the trucks) and that center sill 32 is a cold formed center sill. Thus, Reference 1 teaches providing an existing railcar with a through center sill design of one of the enumerated types, namely a cold formed center sill.
Limitation 2: “Removing an upper portion of the existing railcar;”
Reference 1 teaches a “burn down” operation in which the upper portion of the existing railcar 60 is removed, leaving a cut-down hulk including the center sill 32 and associated underframe components for reuse. This corresponds to removing an upper portion of the existing railcar.
Limitation 3 (underframe and center sill design):
“Forming an underframe construction including a center sill design comprising end portions which are of one of i) a cold formed center sill, ii) a hot rolled center sill and iii) a fabricated center sill and a central center sill portion which is one of i) a cold formed center sill, ii) a hot rolled center sill and iii) a fabricated center sill, wherein the central center sill portion type differs from the end portion type; and transition castings transitioning from the end portions to the central portions;”
Reference 1 describes forming an underframe construction for the modified car 10 using the salvaged center sill 32 and draft arm assemblies 34 from the existing car 60, with bolsters 28 above the trucks and cross bearers 36 forming the underframe.
In this underframe, the central center sill portion 32 is a cold formed center sill (rolled/pressed U-shaped channel with bottom closure plate). Reference 1 further explains that the draft arms 34 (also known as end sections or draft sills) at each end can be cast arms or fabricated arms, either being standard in the art. When fabricated arms are used, transition pieces between the fabricated draft arm 34 and the cold formed center sill 32 are required. Reference 1 explicitly discloses a cast transition casting 66 that joins a fabricated draft arm assembly 34 to the cold formed center sill 32.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “center sill design comprising end portions … and a central center sill portion,” the center sill design of the modified railcar in Reference 1 comprises:
a central center sill portion 32, which is a cold formed center sill; and
end portions 34, which, when fabricated, are fabricated center sill-type end portions of the center sill assembly (they are end portions of the main longitudinal buff/draft load path and function as the end portion of the “center sill design”).
Thus, in the embodiment in which the draft arms 34 are fabricated, the central portion type (cold formed center sill 32) differs from the end portion type (fabricated center sill-type arms 34). The reference explicitly discloses that the arms 34 can be fabricated and that transition castings 66 connect these fabricated arms to the cold formed center sill 32.
Accordingly: the “central center sill portion” of claim 13 corresponds to the cold formed center sill 32 (cold formed type); the “end portions” correspond to the fabricated draft arms 34 (fabricated center sill type); and the “transition castings transitioning from the end portions to the central portions” correspond to the cast transition castings 66 that telescope into and couple the cold formed center sill 32 to the fabricated end assemblies 34.
This meets the limitation that the underframe includes a center sill design with end portions and a central portion of differing types selected from cold formed, hot rolled, and fabricated center sill constructions, and with transition castings connecting the end portions and central portion.
Limitation 4: “Forming an upper body of the modified railcar;”
Reference 1 teaches forming an upper body of the modified railcar 10 (e.g., gondola, open top hopper, covered hopper or other car types) over the underframe using side sheets 20, side stakes 22, top chords 12, end sheets 16, and floor sheets 40. This satisfies forming an upper body of the modified railcar.
Limitation 5: “Attaching the upper body of the modified railcar to the underframe construction.”
Reference 1 teaches attaching the newly formed upper body to the underframe (the center sill 32, bolsters 28, cross bearers 36, etc.) by welding and mechanical fastening, thereby forming the completed modified railcar 10, 62, etc. This corresponds to attaching the upper body of the modified railcar to the underframe construction.
Based on the above mapping, Reference 1 discloses each and every step of claim 13 under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, claim 13 is anticipated by Reference 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
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.
A. CLAIMS 1–12 – 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3, AND CLAIM 9 FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claims 1–8 and 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 (US 2021/0009169 A1) in view of Reference 3 (US 7,856,931 B2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and further in view of Reference 2 (US 3,238,899).
──────────── CLAIM 1
A method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar comprising the steps of:
Providing an existing railcar with a pair of truck assemblies and a center sill design of one of i) a stub sill and ii) a through sill;
Removing an upper portion of the existing railcar;
Forming an underframe construction configured to be above the truck assemblies and having a center sill design of one of i) a stub sill ii) a through sill, and iii) a fish-belly center sill, wherein the underframe construction has a center sill design different from the center sill design of the donor car;
Forming an upper body of the modified railcar; and
Attaching the upper body of the modified railcar to the underframe construction. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 1
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1
Step 1 – Providing an existing railcar with a pair of truck assemblies and a center sill design of one of i) a stub sill and ii) a through sill
Reference 1 discloses an existing railcar 60 having truck assemblies beneath bolsters 28 and a through center sill 32 extending the length of the car between the truck centers. The car body 60 is described as an open top coal car with a through center sill (preferably cold formed center sill 32). Thus, Reference 1 teaches providing an existing railcar with a pair of truck assemblies and a through center sill design, which falls squarely within “one of i) a stub sill and ii) a through sill.”
Reference 3 discloses a center sill assembly 22 in which stub sills 24 and 26 at each end of a hopper car 20 (each with a center bearing 30 supported by a truck) are interconnected by a center sill 28 extending between the trucks. This shows that stub sill center sill designs and through center sill arrangements are both conventional options in the art.
Thus, the “providing” step is taught by Reference 1 (through sill donor) and the general recognition of stub sill and through sill center sill designs is reinforced by Reference 3.
Step 2 – Removing an upper portion of the existing railcar
Reference 1 discloses a burn down operation in which the upper portion of the existing car 60 is removed, leaving a cut-down hulk consisting primarily of the underframe including center sill 32 and associated underframe members. This directly teaches “removing an upper portion of the existing railcar.”
Step 3 – Forming an underframe construction configured to be above the truck assemblies and having a center sill design of one of i) a stub sill ii) a through sill, and iii) a fish-belly center sill, wherein the underframe construction has a center sill design different from the center sill design of the donor car
Reference 1 teaches forming a new underframe construction for the modified railcar 10, including the salved center sill 32 and bolsters 28 that are located above the trucks, with cross bearers 36, stringers 44, and floor sheets 40 forming the underframe. In Reference 1, the center sill 32 is a through center sill of cold formed type in both the donor car 60 and the resulting modified cars 10 and 62. Thus, Reference 1 teaches forming an underframe configured to be above the truck assemblies and having a center sill design (through sill), but does not by itself require that the center sill design be different from that of the donor.
Reference 3 teaches a center sill assembly 22 comprising stub sills 24 and 26 at each end of a covered hopper car 20, with a central center sill 28 extending between the stub sills through the hoppers 32. The stub sills 24, 26 are supported on trucks and are standard in the art; the center sill 28 is a box beam formed from a bent plate main structural member 42 and top cover plate 58. Reference 3 thus teaches both stub sill arrangements and through-type center sill arrangements (center sill 28 runs between the two truck-supported stub sills). It also shows that the center sill 28 can be fabricated in a lighter, efficient form different from conventional center sills.
From Reference 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art learns a modular modification program: an existing through center sill car 60 is cut down, the underframe is formed with center sill 32 and bolsters 28 above the trucks, and different underframe lengths and upper bodies can be employed to obtain different car types (aggregate gondola, three pocket hopper, ballast car, etc.). Reference 3 teaches that underframes using stub sills 24, 26 and boxes like center sills 28 are standard for hopper cars and that the central sill 28 can be manufactured with different structural characteristics from the end stub sills.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when implementing the modification program of Reference 1, to select an underframe center sill design that is different from that of the donor car to meet different strength, weight, or operational requirements. For example, starting from a donor car 60 with a through center sill 32, the motivated artisan would consider using the stub sill/center sill assembly 22 of Reference 3 as the new underframe center sill design, thereby changing from a continuous through sill to a stub sill design at the car ends, while keeping the underframe above the trucks. Conversely, one could start from a stub sill donor (as taught by Reference 3) and adopt a through center sill in the modified car using the teachings of Reference 1.
Thus, combining References 1 and 3 yields forming an underframe construction above the truck assemblies having a center sill design of one of stub sill or through sill, and, by choosing a different design for the modified car than the donor car (e.g., stub sill versus through sill), satisfying the requirement that “the underframe construction has a center sill design different from the center sill design of the donor car.”
The alternative “fish-belly center sill” option is addressed in claim 9 (see below); however, claim 1 merely requires that the center sill design be one of stub sill, through sill, or fish-belly. It is sufficient for obviousness to show stub sill or through sill center sill designs different from that of the donor.
Step 4 – Forming an upper body of the modified railcar
Reference 1 discloses forming various upper bodies for modified railcars (gondola car 10, covered hopper cars 62, aggregate hoppers, ballast hoppers, etc.) using side sheets 20, side stakes 22, top chords 12, end sheets 16, tubs or hopper structures, and roof structures as appropriate for the particular car type. These are formed on top of the underframe construction.
Step 5 – Attaching the upper body of the modified railcar to the underframe construction
Reference 1 discloses attaching the formed upper body to the underframe 64 (center sill 32, bolsters 28, cross bearers 36, etc.) by welding and mechanical fastening, as part of the formation of the modified railcar 10 or 62. This corresponds to attaching the upper body to the underframe construction.
Accordingly, all steps of claim 1 are taught or would have been obvious from the combination of References 1 and 3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 1
Reference 1 expressly teaches a modular modification program in which surplus railcars 60 are cut down, underframes are reconfigured, and different upper bodies are built to create new railcars 10, 62 suited for different service (aggregate, ore, ballast, sand, etc.), emphasizing efficient reuse of donor underframe components and maximization of options for modified car types. Reference 3 teaches that stub sill–center sill assemblies 22 and box-beam center sills 28 are conventional, and describes their use in hopper cars 20 where stub sills 24, 26 support the car on trucks and the center sill 28 runs between them through the lading space.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, seeking to expand the flexibility of the modification program in Reference 1, to substitute the known stub sill/center sill structures of Reference 3 into the underframe of the modified railcars of Reference 1, in order to handle different load cases or to match the underframe style (stub sill or through sill) preferred for the desired new car type. This straightforward substitution of one known center sill style for another, in the context of an explicit modular modification program, would have been motivated by predictable strength/weight tradeoffs, standard railcar design practice, and the explicit goal in Reference 1 of repurposing surplus cars into many different car configurations. Doing so yields an underframe whose center sill design (e.g., stub sill) differs from that of the donor car (e.g., through sill), as recited in claim 1, with predictable results in terms of structural performance and modularity. No inventive ingenuity would be required beyond ordinary design choice.
──────────── CLAIM 2
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 1 wherein the existing railcar includes a stub sill center sill design. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 2
Reference 1 and Reference 3 (same combination as claim 1).
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and limits the existing railcar to a stub sill center sill design.
Reference 1 illustrates the modification program primarily with a donor car 60 having a through center sill 32. However, the modification method is not limited to that particular donor construction; the burn down, salvage of components, and formation of a new underframe and upper body are presented as a general program applicable to surplus cars with suitable underframes.
Reference 3 discloses a covered hopper car body 20 carried by stub sills 24 and 26 that support the car on trucks via center bearings 30. The center sill 28 is connected to these stub sills 24, 26 to form the center sill assembly 22. The existing car of Reference 3 therefore exemplifies an “existing railcar includ[ing] a stub sill center sill design.”
In view of Reference 3, a skilled artisan would understand that the modification program of Reference 1 could equally be applied to existing stub sill railcars, as nothing in Reference 1 limits the program to only through sill donors. The same burn down, salvage, underframe formation, and upper body construction steps can be performed using a donor car of stub sill type (such as that of Reference 3) instead of a through sill donor. Making such an adaptation is a routine design choice driven by the surplus fleet available and would have been obvious.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 2
Reference 1 is motivated by the existence of surplus donor cars and the desire to repurpose them efficiently into valuable new car types. Reference 3 shows that stub sill hopper cars are commonplace. A fleet operator or car builder faced with surplus stub sill cars would naturally wish to apply the proven modification methodology of Reference 1 to those stub sill donors. There is no technical impediment; the same burn down, salvage of underframe components, and new upper body construction can be used. The motivation is economic (reusing idle equipment) and technical (making use of standardized center sill assemblies as in Reference 3), and the result is predictable. Accordingly, limiting the existing railcar to a stub sill center sill design would have been an obvious variant of the program in Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
──────────── CLAIM 3
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 2 wherein the forming of the underframe construction includes using a salvaged stub sill, bolster and shear plate from the existing railcar. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 3
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 3
Claim 3 specifies that, when starting from a stub sill donor (claim 2), the underframe construction is formed using salvaged stub sill, bolster, and shear plate components from the existing railcar.
Reference 1 explicitly teaches that, after burn down, selected components from the existing car 60 are salvaged and reused on the modified railcar 10: the center sill 32, draft arm assemblies 34, brake system components (e.g., control valve, brake cylinder, reservoir), and truck assemblies are listed as examples; selected bolster portions 28 may also be reused. This establishes the principle of reusing underframe components (including center sill and bolsters) from the donor car in forming the underframe of the modified car.
Reference 3, as discussed, discloses stub sills 24, 26, bolsters (integrated into the underframe supporting trucks beneath the center bearings 30), and structural plates forming the deck (side floor sheets and shear-plate-like structures above the trucks). These are the same kinds of underframe components that would be exposed by burning down a stub sill hopper car.
Given Reference 1’s explicit teaching to salvage and reuse underframe members (center sill 32, bolsters 28, truck components) whenever possible as part of an economical modification program, and the presence of stub sills 24, 26, bolsters, and floor/shear plates in the stub sill car of Reference 3, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, applying the program of Reference 1 to a stub sill donor, to reuse the stub sills, bolsters, and shear plates salvaged from the donor car in forming the new underframe. This reuse reduces cost, simplifies fabrication, and is a straightforward extension of the salvage principle already taught in Reference 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 3
Reference 1 expressly promotes salvage and reuse of donor underframe components to reduce cost and improve efficiency, describing reuse of center sill 32, draft arms 34, and bolster portions 28 from car 60. Reference 3 demonstrates that stub sill hopper cars include precisely the same types of structural components (stub sills, bolsters, and shear plates or equivalent deck plates above the trucks). The obvious economic motivation is to minimize new fabrication by reusing as much of the existing stub sill underframe as possible, consistent with adequate structural performance. Therefore, reusing salvaged stub sills, bolsters, and shear plates from an existing stub sill donor in the modified underframe would have been a predictable and routine design choice grounded in the principles already taught in Reference 1.
──────────── CLAIM 4
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 2 wherein the forming of the underframe construction includes forming a through sill center sill design. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 4
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 4
Claim 4 specifies that when the existing railcar has a stub sill center sill design (claim 2), the newly formed underframe uses a through sill center sill design.
Reference 1 discloses a through sill center sill design 32 in both the donor car 60 and the modified railcars 10 and 62 (through center sill running the length of the car with bolsters 28 above the trucks). Reference 3 discloses stub sills 24, 26 and a center sill 28, showing both stub sill assemblies and through-type center sill portions; the description notes that the center sill 28 is the longitudinally central portion of a center sill assembly connecting the stub sills.
Combining these references, a skilled artisan applying the modification program of Reference 1 to a stub sill donor (as in Reference 3) would be led to adopt a through-type center sill (like center sill 32 of Reference 1) as the new underframe center sill design, particularly if the desired modified car type benefits from a continuous center sill (for structural reasons or compatibility with various hopper/gondola designs). Constructing a through center sill underframe over the salvaged trucks is exactly what Reference 1 does, and applying that pattern to a stub sill donor is a straightforward extension.
The limitation that the donor has a stub sill design (claim 2) and the new underframe is a through sill design (claim 4) is thus a predictable combination of known donor structures (stub sills per Reference 3) with known underframe designs (through center sill per Reference 1).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 4
Reference 1 aims to repurpose surplus cars by constructing underframes suitable for a wide range of new car types. Through center sills are known to provide a robust, continuous load path and are common in heavy-duty gondola and hopper cars. Reference 3 shows that stub sill cars are a standard starting point for hopper designs. When modifying stub sill donors, it would have been obvious to adopt a through center sill underframe configuration like that in Reference 1 to meet desired structural criteria or car-type requirements, because doing so simply replaces one known form of center sill arrangement with another well-known alternative, with predictable results in terms of load capacity and stiffness. The economic and structural motivations align with the objectives expressed in Reference 1, making the claimed variation obvious.
──────────── CLAIM 5
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 4 wherein the forming of the underframe construction which includes forming a through sill center sill design includes a fabricated through center sill. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 5
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 5
Claim 5 further specifies that the through sill center sill design formed in claim 4 is a fabricated through center sill.
Reference 1’s cold formed center sill 32 is formed from plate material bent/formed into a U-shaped channel with a closure plate welded across, creating a fabricated box-beam structure. Reference 3’s center sill 28 is formed from a plate first main structural member 42 bent into a U-shaped section (side webs 46, 48 and bottom cover portion 50), with a top cover plate 58 welded across to form a closed box beam, and filler plates 68 at the ends. This is explicitly a fabricated center sill structure and is described as an improvement over prior heavier designs.
Thus, both references teach fabricated through center sills formed by bending and welding plate steel. In the context of claim 4, where the underframe is formed with a through sill design, it would have been an obvious design choice to employ a fabricated through center sill like center sill 28 of Reference 3, or the fabricated cold formed center sill 32 of Reference 1, depending on structural and manufacturing preferences. This yields exactly a “fabricated through center sill.”
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 5
Reference 1 and Reference 3 both emphasize the benefits of using fabricated plate structures (cold formed center sill 32, plate U-section 42, top cover plate 58) to reduce weight and simplify fabrication compared to traditional heavy plate welded box beams. When constructing a new through center sill underframe as in claim 4, the skilled artisan would naturally prefer these lighter, fabricated center sill structures to meet strength requirements while reducing weight and cost. Substituting a fabricated center sill as the through sill design is, therefore, an obvious optimization suggested by the teachings of both references.
──────────── CLAIM 6
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 5 wherein the fabricated through center sill further includes transverse reinforcing webs spaced along the through center sill. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 6
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 6
Claim 6 specifies that the fabricated through center sill includes transverse reinforcing webs spaced along its length.
Reference 3’s center sill 11 (in the skeleton car 10) is a box-like center sill having side web portions 14, top cover plate 16, bottom cover plate 17, and a plurality of transverse separator plate members 18 extending between the side web portions 14 and welded to the top and bottom cover plates. These separator plates 18 are transversely oriented, spaced along the length of the center sill, and provide transverse rigidity and load distribution. They function as transverse reinforcing webs within the center sill.
Similarly, Reference 1’s center sill 32 and draft arm assemblies 34 may incorporate internal reinforcement; however, Reference 3 provides a clear explicit example of spaced internal transverse webs (separator plates 18) in a box-like center sill.
Given that claim 5 already uses a fabricated through center sill, incorporating internal transverse webs spaced along the sill, as taught in Reference 3, would have been an obvious structural reinforcement choice to increase stiffness and distribute loads, especially in heavier duty modified cars.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 6
Reference 3 explains that the separator plates 18 serve to rigidify the center sill 11 internally, providing transverse strength and excellent load distribution, while allowing standardized construction over a range of capacities. A person of ordinary skill designing a fabricated through center sill for a modified car (claims 1, 4, 5) would naturally adopt such spaced transverse webs to achieve similar benefits of strength and load distribution. The motivation is to ensure adequate stiffness and fatigue resistance in the through center sill, especially where the center sill is made lighter by fabrication. Incorporating spaced transverse internal webs is thus an obvious adaptation of the design in Reference 3 into the fabricated through center sill used in the modification program of Reference 1.
──────────── CLAIM 7
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 6 wherein the fabricated through center sill further includes transverse reinforcing webs within the salvaged stub sills. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 7
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 7
Claim 7 adds that the transverse reinforcing webs extend within the salvaged stub sills.
In the context of claims 2–6, the existing railcar is a stub sill car, and the modified underframe uses a fabricated through center sill coupled to salvaged stub sills. Reference 3’s skeleton car and flat car use a center sill 11 with internal transverse separator plates 18 extending between side webs 14 and welded to top and bottom plates 16, 17. These separator plates extend through the center sill and effectively continue into the regions adjacent to the bolsters and near the truck connections, providing continuity of stiffness.
When a fabricated through center sill is coupled to salvaged stub sills (as in combining References 1 and 3), a person of ordinary skill would recognize the desirability of extending internal reinforcing webs into or within the stub sills to maintain continuity of stiffness and to transmit loads effectively between the central portion and the stub ends. This is a straightforward extension of the internal web design of Reference 3 to the portions of the sill assembly within the stub sills, ensuring robust load transfer at the joints between the central sill and the salvaged stub sills.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 7
Reference 3 highlights that the separator plates 18 and gusset plates 20 provide a “unitized center sill having good longitudinal flexibility while being of sufficient rigidity to handle substantial static and dynamic loads.” A skilled designer, seeking to maintain these benefits when coupling a fabricated through center sill to salvaged stub sills per the modification program of Reference 1, would naturally extend reinforcing webs into the stub sill regions to avoid stress concentrations at the joint and maintain a continuous load path. This is an expected and routine structural enhancement, not a departure from the teachings of the prior art.
──────────── CLAIM 8
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 4 wherein the modified railcar is one of a three hopper transverse hopper car, a longitudinal hopper aggregate car, a covered double hopper car, a covered triple hopper car, a covered quad hopper car, a transverse hopper coal car, an aggregate gondola car, and a ballast car. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 8
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 8
Reference 1 explicitly enumerates a variety of modified railcar types that can be formed using the burn down and underframe/upper body reconstruction program. These include, among others, three pocket hopper cars, aggregate gondola cars, ballast hopper cars, and various other hopper configurations. Specifically, Reference 1 describes:
– a gondola aggregate car 10 (flat bottom gondola with cold formed center sill 32) for aggregate service;
– open top three pocket hopper cars 62 with through center sill 32 designed for coke and similar lading;
– open top hopper ballast modification car 62 (ballast hopper) with four longitudinal ballast outlet gates;
– open top aggregate hopper cars with transverse doors and longitudinal doors (three hopper and four hopper configurations);
– covered hopper cars for sand, cement, and roofing granules.
The enumerated types in claim 8 (three hopper transverse hopper car, longitudinal hopper aggregate car, covered double/triple/quad hopper cars, transverse hopper coal car, aggregate gondola car, ballast car) correspond closely to the categories and car types disclosed in Reference 1. The precise names may differ slightly, but the functional configurations (number of hoppers, transverse versus longitudinal discharge, covered versus open top, aggregate versus coal versus ballast service) are all clearly taught.
Therefore, once claims 1–4 have been rendered obvious by References 1 and 3, limiting the modified railcar to one of the enumerated types is simply choosing among the specific car types expressly disclosed in Reference 1 as possible outputs of the modification program, and does not confer patentable distinction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 8
Reference 1 expressly presents the modification program as a modular system for producing numerous specified car types (aggregate gondola, multiple hopper configurations, ballast cars, covered hoppers, etc.) from a common donor. A person of ordinary skill, adopting the basic modification method (claims 1–4) for a stub sill donor in view of Reference 3, would reasonably select any of the already disclosed car types depending on market demand (aggregate, coal, ballast, cement, etc.). The selection of a specific one of these car types is a matter of design choice driven by commercial needs rather than inventive ingenuity.
──────────── CLAIM 9
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 4 wherein the forming of the underframe construction includes forming a fish-belly center sill design. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 9
Reference 1, Reference 3, and further Reference 2.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9
Claim 9 requires that the underframe construction formed in claim 4 includes a fish-belly center sill design.
Reference 2 (Gutridge) discloses a skeletonized railway car 10 including an elongated box-like center sill 11 supported on truck assemblies 21 and bolsters 22. The side elevation of car 10 is described as having an overall contour commonly referred to as a “fishbelly” design, with the center sill 11 having a central section of greater vertical depth than the end sections which project over the truck assemblies 21. The lower edges of the side webs 14 are trimmed to form this fishbelly contour. The center sill is box-like, with top cover plate 16, bottom cover plate 17, and internal transverse separator plates 18 and gusset plates 20. Thus, Reference 2 clearly teaches a fish-belly center sill design.
As explained above for claim 4, Reference 1 provides the modification program (burn down, underframe formation, and body reconstruction), and Reference 3 shows the possibility of converting between stub sill and through sill arrangements. Once a designer is using this program, Reference 2 provides an alternative, standardized center sill design—fish-belly center sill 11—that is known to provide improved stability and low deck height.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, when forming the new underframe construction for a modified railcar under the method of Reference 1, to adopt the fish-belly center sill design 11 of Reference 2 in place of the constant-depth through sill 32, especially where a lower floor or improved stability is desired for a hopper or gondola car. This directly satisfies the requirement that the forming of the underframe includes forming a fish-belly center sill design.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 9
Reference 2 highlights that the fishbelly center sill 11 provides a desirable low deck height while maintaining structural strength, by having greater depth in the central portion between trucks and shallower depth over the trucks. Reference 1’s modification program is explicitly aimed at providing a wide range of modified car types, some of which would benefit from reduced car height and improved stability. In this context, substituting a fish-belly center sill design for the through sill 32 of Reference 1 is a straightforward application of known fish-belly center sill technology to the underframe of the modified cars, suggested by the advantages articulated in Reference 2. The combination yields predictable structural benefits and falls squarely within ordinary design practice.
──────────── CLAIM 10
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 1 wherein the existing railcar includes a through sill center sill design. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 10
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10
Reference 1 already discloses that the existing railcar 60 is an open top coal car with a through center sill 32 extending the length of the car. This is precisely an existing railcar including a through sill center sill design. Therefore, claim 10 merely selects the through sill option already taught by Reference 1 and does not distinguish over the combination for claim 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 10
No additional combination beyond that used for claim 1 is needed; Reference 1 itself explicitly uses a through sill center sill design in the existing railcar. Selecting that option in the claims is directly taught and thus obvious.
──────────── CLAIM 11
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 10 the forming of the underframe construction includes forming a stub sill center sill design. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 11
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11
Claim 11 requires that, starting from a through sill donor (claim 10), the modified underframe uses a stub sill center sill design.
Reference 3 teaches stub sill hopper car construction, where stub sills 24, 26 at each car end support the car on trucks and are joined by a central center sill 28. Reference 1 teaches how to burn down and reconstruct the underframe of a through sill donor car 60.
Combining these teachings, a skilled artisan could cut down a through sill donor car 60 per Reference 1, and then form an underframe using stub sills (possibly salvaged or fabricated) at each end, connected by a central center sill (like center sill 28) to create a stub sill center sill design for the modified car. This is effectively the inverse of claim 4 (converting stub sill donor to through sill underframe); both conversions are straightforward exchanges of known center sill configurations, guided by structural and operational requirements.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 11
Reference 1’s modular program is explicitly directed toward maximizing the flexibility of car types produced from surplus donors. Reference 3 demonstrates stub sill configurations and their advantages for hopper designs. When starting from a through sill donor, the designer may prefer a stub sill underframe design for a particular hopper configuration or loading requirement. It would have been obvious to follow the burn down and rebuilding steps of Reference 1, but instead of reconstructing a through sill, to adopt the stub sill assembly 22 of Reference 3, thereby achieving a stub sill underframe in the modified car. This is a predictable substitution of known alternatives in a modular system, motivated by design choice.
──────────── CLAIM 12
The method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar according to claim 11 wherein the modified railcar is a stub sill hopper railcar having two sloping end sheets for the end hoppers and wherein the stub sill is cut to form an angle that is substantially perpendicular to the angle of an adjacent end sheet. ────────────
REFERENCES APPLIED FOR CLAIM 12
Reference 1 and Reference 3.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12
Claim 12 specifies a stub sill hopper railcar having two sloping end sheets for end hoppers, and requires that the stub sill be cut to form an angle substantially perpendicular to the angle of an adjacent end sheet.
Reference 3 discloses a covered hopper car body 20 with hoppers 32 and slope sheets 34 and 36 forming sloping walls directing lading to discharge outlets. As discussed for claim 11, the car uses stub sills 24, 26 for support, and the center sill 28 extends through the hoppers. In practice, the stub sills 24, 26 join to the car body near the