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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
With regard to limitations in the preamble of the claim(s), this language is not believed to limit the claim. Specifically, the claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In this case, the body of the claim makes no mention to any specific features that a “public transit vehicle” would possess (such as “structures”) and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Therefore, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-481 and MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The subject matter of claim 24 is already present in claim 22 as amended. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camellini in view of Starnes.
For claim 22, Camellini (2021/0261078) discloses a barrier between a driver cockpit and a rear area of a vehicle, the barrier comprising:
a driver side barrier (left of door 10, FIG.1) and a curbside barrier (right of 10, FIG.1); and
a sliding door (10) disposed between the driver side barrier and the curbside barrier.
PNG
media_image1.png
613
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The driver side barrier is a fixed driver side barrier that is fastened to driver side stanchions (elements 30) mounted between a floor and a ceiling of the vehicle; and the curbside barrier is a fixed barrier that is fastened between a curbside stanchion (fixed to a left-hand side of the structure as seen in FIGS. 1 and 11) and a curbside wall of the vehicle. The reference makes clear that a plurality of elements (30) can be applied and using the standard of BRI it is apparent that one of the elements (30) is applied to position the curbside barrier between the element and a curbside wall of the vehicle.
Camellini discloses both the driver side and curbside barriers each being a single structure which fails to include an opaque barrier, respectively.
These features are taught by Starnes (4848832) which includes driver side and curbside barriers with fixed portions and opaque portions (FIGS.1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
309
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided the driver and curb side barriers of Camellini with both fixed and opaque barriers as taught by Starnes as an obvious design expedient to allow a driver visibility through the barriers.
For claim 23, a driver side stanchion (30, [0077]) is mounted between a floor and a ceiling of the vehicle, where the disclosure makes clear that one or more stanchions is suitable.
For claim 24, the driver side stanchions are configured to support the driver side barrier and the sliding door.
For claim 25, a curbside stanchion (30, [0077]) is mounted between the floor and the ceiling of the vehicle and is configured to support the curbside barrier.
Claims 28, 32-34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camellini, as modified, and further in view of Starnes.
For claim 28, the sliding door of Camellini, as modified, includes a panel mounted to the driver side stanchions by way of sliders and mounts but lacks a transparent panel.
Starnes further teaches providing the sliding door with a transparent panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided Camellini, as modified, with a transparent panel for the sliding door as taught by Starnes as an obvious design expedient to allow a driver visibility through the door.
For claim 32, Camellini, as modified, discloses the sliding door is configured to facilitate changing the barrier between a closed configuration and an open configuration (in so much as the sliding door is capable of being moved between the two configurations). This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 33, Camellini, as modified, discloses the sliding door in the closed configuration is configured to prevent passengers from accessing the driver cockpit; and the sliding door in the open configuration is configured to allow passengers to enter and exit the passenger seating area. This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 34, Camellini, as modified, discloses the sliding door is configured to be moved by an operator disposed in the driver cockpit (in so much as it is capable of being moved by an operator). This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
Claim 37 is known from Camellini as modified with Starnes (FIG.2).
Claims 35-36 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camellini, as modified, and further in view of DE 102012022809 (DE 809).
DE 809 teaches the use of a slide door which is hinges (about axis “T”, FIG.3) to provide alternative vehicle configurations.
PNG
media_image4.png
330
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Swingable partition wall door (13) rotates around door axes (T) of the hold (Abstract, Novelty). The door swings around segment axles (S1, S2). The door segments are coupled with the partition wall door in operation position and swung around the door axles which allows the door to be, in one configuration, positioned behind a side of the driver, and in another configuration, to be positioned adjacent or with the driver seat (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided Camellini, as modified, with a hinging mechanism as taught by DE 809 in order to allow the sliding door to be provided in an alternate configuration, one in which the driver is further protected.
For claim 35, Camellini, as modified above, discloses the sliding door includes hinges (taught by DE 809) that enable the operator to rotate the sliding door from the closed configuration to an aisle configuration (FIG.3 of DE 809).
For claim 36, the sliding door of Camellini, as modified, when in the aisle configuration cooperates with the driver side barrier to isolate the operator from the passenger seating area during loading and unloading passengers.
For claims 42 and 43, Camellini, as modified, discloses sliders as set forth above with respect to claim 28 and hinges as set for above with respect to claim 35.
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camellini, as modified, and further in view of FR 2599319 or EP 0027483 or Schmidt et al. (2017/0327070).
For claims 39-41, Camellini, as modified, provides the one of the barriers and sidling door comprises a glass panel but fails to disclose a polycarbonate or acrylic panel or metal/hard plastic.
FR 2599319 (FR 319) teaches a protective device (partitioning a vehicle space) where the device is made of transparent plastic, for example of polycarbonate six millimeters thick (where 6 mm is approximately 0.236 inches).
EP 0027483 (EP 483) teaches a partition of acrylic material of sufficient thickness to dissuade a possible aggression.
Schmidt et al. teach a barrier with a lower portion (lower section 19) being a rigid opaque material, such as steel or similar metal ([0059]).
It should be noted that it is well known in the art for polycarbonate and acrylic transparent panels to be used as alternatives to glass.
For claim 41, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have substituted the material of the barrier or door of Camellini, as modified, with metal as taught by Schmidt et al. as an obvious material alternative to the rigid material provided.
For claims 39-40, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have substituted the glass of Camellini, as modified, with either one of an acrylic and polycarbonate panel as taught by FR 319 or EP 483 as an obvious material alternative in order to allow the barrier to be stronger, lighter in weight, or have other desirable physical properties. It should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided the thickness of the acrylic panel of Camellini, as modifieid, to be ¼ inch or the thickness of the polycarbonate panel of Camellini, as modified, to be 3/8 inch since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the barrier of Camellini, as modified, would not operate differently if further modified with the claimed thickness. Applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Camellini fails to disclose wherein the curbside barrier includes a fixed barrier and a second barrier that are fastened between a curbside stanchion and a curbside wall of the vehicle as set forth in amended claim 22. The examiner disagrees and is not persuaded by this argument. Specifically, as set forth in Camellini it is apparent a plurality of elements (30) is installed to help support and align the structure. One of these elements (30) is see at least in FIGS.1 and 11 positioned to the left-hand side of the drawing figure and can represent the curbside stanchion as broadly recited and interpreted. Moreover, the reference is not limited to the positioning of the elements (30) shown and it is apparent to a PHOSITA that the plurality of elements could be provided at other locations to best support the structure. The rejections as set forth above are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clelland (5069497) discloses a driver side barrier, a curbside barrier, and a sliding door. The barriers (left and right bulkhead wall portions) (202,204) are “attached to” side posts (not shown) (Col 3, lines 38-40).
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614