DETAILED ACTION
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 20, 2023 has been reviewed and considered by the Examiner.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamrozy et al (US 6,363,864) in view of Khenokh et al (US 2018/0001911) and further in view of Eastall (US 2014/0084612).
Jamrozy et al discloses a wagon 10 for transporting containers for use in double-stack rail transport comprised of a pair of bogies 12, and a platform 20 with side walls 50 arranged between said bogies. The height of a side wall extending over the platform in its lowest point does not exceed 60 cm, as depicted in figure 3, wherein bottom containers comprises cradles 70 for transporting sheet metal coils.
Jamrozy et al discloses the transport container as shown above. However, Jamrozy et al does not show the railcar to accommodate two containers. Khenokh et al discloses a double stack container car that further utilizes inter-box connectors to secure the containers to the car and to each other in the stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a double stack car, like that of Khenokh et al, as a teaching to show an additional container can be stacked on the lid of a railcar, like that of Jamrozy et al, with the expected result of providing a car for accommodating more cargo in an efficient manner. Specific twist locks are understood in the art to be a type of inter-box connector and it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a connector, like that of a twist lock, to secure the containers together with the expected result of utilizing a connector that is easy for the user to apply and operate.
Jamrozy et al discloses the transport container as shown above having a side wall extending above the platform, as shown in figure 3 and 4. The side wall comprises trapezoid reduced-height sections, wherein the side wall extends above the platform in said reduced-height sections, as shown in figures 4 and 5. The side wall comprises a top support, as described in column 2, lines 50-60 and the top support are linked with connectors as shown in figure 4. However, Jamrozy does not specifically show exact dimension of the side wall extending 55-60cm above the platform and 40-45 cm above the platform in said reduced-height sections. It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the side walls 55-60 cm and 40-45 in the reduced height area to come to the expected result to adequately and safely accommodate and secure the stacked containers.
The combination discloses the double stack railcar but does not show a coil lifter for unloading the coils to be transported. Eastall discloses a hook assembly for moving and manipulating steel coils. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a hook, like that of Eastall, as a teaching to show a method for moving coils with the expected result of moving and manipulating coils in a safe and efficient manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert J McCarry Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-6683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, S. Joseph Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/Robert J McCarry Jr/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
RJM
December 17, 2025