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 06/22/2023 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 10 and 14 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.
Claim 10 recites that “said longitudinal portion is formed at least predominantly by said at least one tank over an entirety of said cross section.”
Claim 14 recites that “said car body shell is configured at least predominantly as said at least one tank.”
The term “at least predominantly” is a relative term that does not have a clear, quantitative boundary in the claims. The specification states, in substance, that a longitudinal portion of the car body shell can be formed “over the entire cross section of walls … at least predominantly or else completely by the tank,” but does not provide an objective criterion (for example, a minimum percentage of wall area, cross-sectional area, structural contribution, or volume) by which “predominantly” can be measured. As a result, it is unclear where the boundary lies between a longitudinal portion that is “predominantly” formed by the tank and a longitudinal portion that is not.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1: DE 20 2006 002564 U1
REFERENCE 2: US 2019/0316734 A1
REFERENCE 3: US 2014/0033942 A1
REFERENCE 4: US 2017/0145961 A1
REFERENCE 5: DE 10 2013 208849 B4
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 9: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY REFERENCE 1
Claim 9:
─────── 9. A rail vehicle car, comprising: a car body shell of the rail vehicle car; and at least one tank for storing gaseous fuels, said at least one tank being integrated into said car body shell, and said at least one tank having walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within said car body shell. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9 OVER REFERENCE 1
“a rail vehicle car”
Reference 1 discloses a road and/or rail vehicle, in particular a refrigerated semi-trailer 16, for transporting liquid and/or gaseous media. The description explicitly states that the vehicle body 14 is suitable both for road vehicles and for rail vehicles, such that a person of ordinary skill would understand that the disclosed structure is applicable as a rail vehicle car.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic disclosure of a vehicle that can be a rail vehicle anticipates a rail vehicle car.
“a car body shell of the rail vehicle car”
Reference 1 discloses a vehicle body 14 which forms the outer shell of the vehicle, including side walls 34, a roof or load deck 42, and associated structural elements mounted on a support frame 12. The vehicle body 14 corresponds to the claimed “car body shell of the rail vehicle car.”
“at least one tank for storing gaseous fuels”
Reference 1 discloses a tank 10 arranged on a support frame 12 in the vehicle body 14 for transporting liquid and/or gaseous media. The tank 10 is thus a tank for storing gaseous media. Since the claimed “gaseous fuels” are structurally just gaseous media and the tank of Reference 1 is capable of storing gaseous fuels (e.g., LPG, CNG, hydrogen) in the same manner as any other gaseous medium, this limitation is met.
“said at least one tank being integrated into said car body shell”
Reference 1 expressly states that the tank 10 is integrated into a vehicle body 14. Figures 1–3 further show the tank 10 located within and structurally associated with the vehicle body 14, supported on a frame 12 and extending along the length of the vehicle body. Tank 10 is not a separate external vessel but is built into the vehicle body structure. This corresponds to the claimed tank “being integrated into said car body shell.”
“and said at least one tank having walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within said car body shell.”
Reference 1 teaches that the tank 10 may be mounted on support frame 12 or configured as self-supporting, and that a deck surface associated with the tank is walkable and drivable. In particular:
– Reference 1 discloses that tank 10 can be mounted on a support frame 12 or designed as a self-supporting structure. The self-supporting version necessarily has walls sized and configured to bear mechanical loads associated with the vehicle and cargo.
– Reference 1 further describes a deck surface 22 associated with the tank being walkable and drivable, such that the deck can be used as a load-carrying surface for goods and/or people.
– Figures 4 and 5 of Reference 1 show frame longitudinal beams 52 and crossbeams 54 incorporated into or forming part of the tank 10’s structure, together with internal transverse walls 60 and baffles 58, resulting in a box-like tank structure whose walls carry loads between the deck surface and the support frame 12.
These teachings collectively show that the tank walls (including the upper deck wall and side walls of tank 10) are constructed and dimensioned to carry structural loads within the vehicle body 14: they support loads from persons and vehicles on the deck surface, they cooperate with frame members 52, 54 to stiffen the vehicle body, and they contain internal partitions 60 that likewise share loads. Therefore, the tank 10 has walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within the car body shell 14, satisfying the final limitation.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 9. Claim 9 is therefore anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) by Reference 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.
CLAIM 10: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 10:
─────── 10. The rail vehicle car according to claim 9, wherein said car body shell has a longitudinal portion and walls with a cross section, and said longitudinal portion is formed at least predominantly by said at least one tank over an entirety of said cross section. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 10 depends from claim 9. As discussed above, Reference 1 discloses all limitations of claim 9, including a vehicle body 14 forming a car body shell with an integrated tank 10 whose walls are load-bearing.
Additional limitation: “said car body shell has a longitudinal portion and walls with a cross section”
Reference 1 inherently discloses that the vehicle body 14 has a longitudinal direction (along the length of the vehicle) and walls defining a cross section (side walls 34, roof/load deck 42, and floor regions on frame 12). Tank 10 extends along a longitudinal portion of the vehicle body 14, as seen in the side view with tank 10 running along a significant length of the body 14. Thus a “longitudinal portion” of the car body shell with a cross section is already present in Reference 1.
Additional limitation: “and said longitudinal portion is formed at least predominantly by said at least one tank over an entirety of said cross section.”
In Reference 1, in the embodiments shown in Figures 1–3, tank 10 occupies a large fraction of the internal cross section of the vehicle body 14 but the remaining cross section includes non-tank wall portions (for example, upper roof portions and side wall areas 34 above the tank, or separate floor plates 22). Reference 1 therefore suggests a longitudinal portion in which the tank occupies much of the cross section, but does not clearly show that the longitudinal portion is formed “at least predominantly” by the tank over the entirety of the cross section of the car body shell.
Reference 2, however, discloses a pressurized LNG rail tender 10 in which a double-hulled tank 12 (inner tank 16 and outer tank 18) essentially defines the carbody cross section over a substantial longitudinal extent. The outer tank 18 provides a protective envelope and is supported on or integrated into the rolling stock chassis 14. In such a tank car configuration, the outer tank 18 forms the principal sidewall and roof structure of the vehicle, with the cross section between any two longitudinal frames being substantially the cross section of tank 12 plus minor structural members (walkway brackets, insulation, etc.). Thus, Reference 2 illustrates a longitudinal portion of a rail vehicle car whose cross section is formed predominantly by the tank 12.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, having Reference 1’s concept of integrating a pressure tank 10 into a vehicle body 14 and Reference 2’s well-known tank car configuration in which the carbody cross section is largely formed by a cylindrical or double-hulled tank 12, would have found it obvious to dimension and arrange the integrated tank 10 of Reference 1 so that, in a longitudinal portion, the tank occupies substantially the entire cross section of the car body shell (i.e., the sidewalls, roof, and floor are formed predominantly by the tank walls), exactly as in the tank-car style body of Reference 2.
Applying this configuration to the rail-vehicle embodiment of Reference 1 yields a rail vehicle car whose car body shell has a longitudinal portion with a cross section in which the longitudinal portion is formed at least predominantly by the integrated tank 10 over the entire cross section, as claimed.
Thus, the additional limitation of claim 10 is rendered obvious by Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE — CLAIM 10
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the integrated tank of Reference 1 using the tank-car layout of Reference 2 so that, in a longitudinal portion, the tank walls make up essentially the entire cross-sectional envelope of the car body shell. Doing so predictably increases usable tank volume and reduces separate body-shell structure, directly addressing the shared goal of maximizing stored liquid/gaseous fuel within the vehicle outline.
CLAIM 11: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 11:
─────── 11. The rail vehicle car according to claim 10, wherein said car body shell has an end wall or an intermediate wall, and said longitudinal portion completely encloses said end wall or said intermediate wall. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 11 depends on claim 10, whose subject matter is considered obvious over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 as explained above.
Additional limitation: “wherein said car body shell has an end wall or an intermediate wall”
Any practical rail vehicle car has end walls and may also have intermediate transverse walls (bulkheads) within the car body shell for structural and functional reasons (passenger separation, equipment rooms, etc.). Reference 1’s vehicle body 14 is depicted as a closed box-like structure with front and rear walls (vehicle front and rear 20, 44) and may include internal transverse walls. Similarly, Reference 2’s rail tender 10 includes end structures integral with or attached to the tank 12 and chassis 14. Thus, the presence of an end wall or intermediate wall in the car body shell is conventional and would be inherent in any practical embodiment of the modified Reference 1/Reference 2 combination discussed for claim 10.
Additional limitation: “and said longitudinal portion completely encloses said end wall or said intermediate wall.”
This limitation requires that the longitudinal tank portion forming the cross section surrounds (encloses) an end wall or intermediate wall of the car body shell.
Reference 1 discloses that the tank 10 can be divided into multiple chambers by transverse partitions or walls 60 within the tank, and that these transverse walls extend across the cross section of the tank 10. In that configuration, the outer shell of the tank 10 completely encloses the internal transverse walls 60.
A person of ordinary skill, after adopting the configuration of claim 10 (where the longitudinal portion of the car body shell is largely formed by the tank), would find it routine to align one or more such transverse walls 60 structurally with an end wall or intermediate wall of the car body shell (for example, where a passenger doorway, vestibule, or equipment room is positioned), and to extend the tank shell continuously around that wall. This yields an arrangement in which a longitudinal tank shell portion forming the carbody cross section completely encloses a transverse wall that functions as an “end wall or intermediate wall” of the car body shell.
Reference 2’s double-hulled tank 12 also illustrates the general concept of outer tank walls 18 completely enclosing an inner structure (inner tank 16) and any baffles or partitions within the vessel. Translating this concept to the integrated-tank carbody of Reference 1–Reference 2 combination would lead a skilled person to extend the tank shell fully around a transverse wall or bulkhead, so that the wall is inside the longitudinal tank envelope.
Therefore, in view of the combined teachings and routine engineering practice of aligning internal tank partitions with carbody bulkheads, it would have been obvious to provide the longitudinal tank portion such that it completely encloses an end wall or intermediate wall, as claimed.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE — CLAIM 11
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to align a transverse carbody wall with an internal tank partition (like the transverse walls in Reference 1) and have the continuous tank shell completely enclose that wall, as in the double-hull arrangements of Reference 2. This simple structural alignment preserves necessary interior compartmentation while maximizing tank volume and maintaining a continuous pressure shell.
CLAIM 12: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND REFERENCE 4
Claim 12:
─────── 12. The rail vehicle car according to claim 10, wherein: said car body shell has bogie regions; end-side bogies or a single bogie is disposed centrally in a longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle car; and said longitudinal portion formed by said at least one tank includes an overhang lying outside said bogie regions. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND REFERENCE 4
Claim 12 depends on claim 10, which is obvious over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 as discussed above.
Additional limitation: “said car body shell has bogie regions; end-side bogies or a single bogie is disposed centrally in a longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle car”
Reference 2 is explicitly a rail tender 10 mounted on trucks (bogies) that ride on rails. The tender 10 rests on two trucks that are positioned at spaced locations along the length of the chassis 14, defining “bogie regions” at each end of the tender. The central region between the trucks is free of bogies.
Reference 4, in the context of a locomotive 10, shows a base 20 supported by trucks 12 and extending longitudinally between them, with the fuel deck 14 disposed between the trucks and below the engine deck 16. The trucks 12 define bogie regions, and the space outside those regions forms typical end overhangs of the locomotive.
Thus, the concept of a rail vehicle car body shell with defined bogie regions and trucks (bogies) at the ends or centrally is well-established in References 2 and 4.
Additional limitation: “said longitudinal portion formed by said at least one tank includes an overhang lying outside said bogie regions.”
In claim 10, as rendered obvious over References 1 and 2, the longitudinal portion formed predominantly by the tank spans at least a central part of the car body shell between trucks. Claim 12 requires that this tank-formed portion also includes an overhang that lies outside the bogie regions (i.e., extends into the end regions beyond the truck centers).
In both locomotives (Reference 4) and tenders (Reference 2), it is standard practice for the carbody to extend beyond each bogie to a coupler at each end, forming “overhang” regions outside the bogie centerlines. In Reference 4, the base 20 extends longitudinally across two or more trucks 12, and is described as forming an undercarriage of the locomotive 10, with end portions beyond the trucks that can carry diesel tanks or other equipment beneath the undercarriage.
A person of ordinary skill, having already decided (per claim 10) to use an integrated tank that occupies the majority of the cross section in a central longitudinal portion, would recognize that extending the tank slightly into the overhang regions at one or both ends of the car provides additional storage volume without increasing vehicle width or height. The overhang regions outside the bogie regions are natural locations for such extensions, as they are not directly above the bogies and are conventionally used for auxiliary equipment.
By extending the integrated tank 10 of Reference 1, shaped and positioned per Reference 2, into these overhang regions identified by Reference 4, the resulting longitudinal portion formed by the tank includes end segments located outside the bogie regions—i.e., tank overhangs—satisfying the last limitation of claim 12.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE — CLAIM 12
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to extend the integrated tank portion of the carbody (as in Ref. 1/2) into the end overhang regions outside the bogie regions, following the common practice illustrated in Reference 4 of using overhang zones for fuel/equipment to exploit the full car length. This extension predictably increases tank capacity and improves vehicle space utilization without changing width or height.
CLAIM 13: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 13:
─────── 13. The rail vehicle car according to claim 10, wherein: said car body shell has bogie regions and a length; the rail vehicle is equipped with end-side bogies or the rail vehicle is configured as an articulated train car; and said longitudinal portion formed by said at least one tank is disposed centrally outside said bogie regions and over said length of said car body shell. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 13 depends on claim 10, already obvious over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Additional limitation: “said car body shell has bogie regions and a length; the rail vehicle is equipped with end-side bogies or the rail vehicle is configured as an articulated train car”
As discussed for claim 12, Reference 2 shows a rail tender 10 that is supported by trucks (bogies) at its ends and has a finite carbody length between those bogies. Thus, Reference 2 illustrates a carbody with bogie regions at both ends (end-side bogies). The alternative articulated-train configuration is simply another well-known arrangement where bogies are shared between adjacent cars (Jacobs bogies); this is conventional design knowledge in the art of passenger rail vehicles and does not change the basic relationship between central body portions and bogie regions.
Additional limitation: “and said longitudinal portion formed by said at least one tank is disposed centrally outside said bogie regions and over said length of said car body shell.”
In Reference 2, the double-hulled tank 12 is located centrally between the trucks and spans substantially the entire length between the bogies, forming the main body of the tender car 10 between bogie regions. In other words, the central longitudinal portion of the tender, outside the immediate bogie support regions, is formed by the tank 12 and extends over almost the full length between bogies.
When applied to the integrated-tank carbody of Reference 1 (as modified per claim 10), a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to arrange the longitudinal portion formed by the tank centrally between the bogie regions and to extend it substantially over the length between those bogies. This configuration provides favorable weight distribution (placing the mass of the tank and fuel between supports) and maximizes usable tank volume.
Thus, the combined teaching of Reference 1 (integrated tank in vehicle body) and Reference 2 (central tank spanning between end-side bogies) would have made it obvious to arrange the longitudinal tank portion centrally between bogies and extending over the length of the carbody between bogies, satisfying the limitations of claim 13.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE — CLAIM 13
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to position the integrated tank centrally between end-side bogies and extend it over substantially the entire carbody length between those bogies, as in the central tank of the rail tender in Reference 2. This yields well-known benefits of balanced axle loads, reduced bending moments, and maximum central fuel volume in line with standard railcar design practice.
CLAIM 14: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 5
Claim 14:
─────── 14. The rail vehicle car according to claim 9, wherein: the rail vehicle car is configured as a bogie-less car transition module having ends and a coupling rod; said coupling rod exclusively transmits longitudinal forces between car bodies adjoining said ends of said car transition module without involvement of said car body shell of said car transition module; and said car body shell is configured at least predominantly as said at least one tank. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 5
Claim 14 depends on claim 9, which is anticipated by Reference 1.
Additional limitation: “the rail vehicle car is configured as a bogie-less car transition module having ends and a coupling rod”
Reference 5 discloses a wheel-less vehicle bridge box 10 for a multi-part rail vehicle 100. The bridge box 10 has a first support point 23 on a preceding rail car 101 and a second support point 23 on a following rail car 102, and lacks its own running gear (bogies), thereby functioning as a bogie-less car transition module between the cars.
Reference 5 further specifies that at least one functional module is a power-transmission module 60 or an underframe module 40 extending from the first support point 23 to the second support point 23 to transmit tensile and/or compressive forces between the two support points. This power-transmission module 60 or underframe module 40 is effectively a structural coupling element extending between the end regions of the bridge box 10 and the adjacent car bodies, i.e., a coupling rod in functional terms.
Thus, Reference 5 teaches a bogie-less car transition module 10 with end regions and a structural element 40 or 60 extending between them that transmits forces between adjoining car bodies.
Additional limitation: “said coupling rod exclusively transmits longitudinal forces between car bodies adjoining said ends of said car transition module without involvement of said car body shell of said car transition module”
Reference 5 explains that, in certain embodiments, tensile and/or compressive forces between the support points 23 are transmitted via the dedicated power-transmission module 60 (e.g., a jointed bridge) or underframe module 40 that extends between the support points, while the functional modules such as toilet module 30 and entry modules 20 are arranged above and are carried by, but do not themselves transmit the longitudinal forces.
This arrangement corresponds to a structure in which the coupling element (module 60 or module 40 functioning as a coupling rod) is responsible for transmitting longitudinal forces between car bodies 101, 102, with the carbody shell of the transition module (sidewalls 11, 12, roof 13, floor 14 and functional modules 20, 30, 50) largely not involved in transmitting these longitudinal forces. This matches the claimed concept that a coupling rod exclusively transmits longitudinal forces without involving the car body shell of the transition module in longitudinal load paths.
Additional limitation: “and said car body shell is configured at least predominantly as said at least one tank.”
Reference 1 teaches integrating a tank 10 into a vehicle body 14 and, as discussed for claim 10, suggests that a longitudinal portion of the body shell can be formed predominantly or entirely by the tank structure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, when designing a hydrogen- or gaseous-fuel-powered trainset, would recognize from Reference 5 that the bogie-less transition module 10 between rail cars offers significant volume and experiences relatively low longitudinal structural stresses in its shell, because the longitudinal forces are carried by the dedicated power-transmission module 60 or underframe 40. This makes the transition module a natural candidate for integrating a large fuel tank into its carbody shell.
By applying the integrated-tank concept of Reference 1 to the carbody shell of the bridge box 10 of Reference 5, the skilled person would configure the sidewalls 11, 12, roof 13, and floor 14 of the transition module as a closed hollow tank (or set of tanks) for storing gaseous fuel, forming the predominant portion of the shell. Because the longitudinal forces between adjoining car bodies 101, 102 are already carried by the module 60 or 40 (the coupling rod), the shell can be optimized primarily for pressure containment and local structural loads, just as in Reference 1’s integrated tank 10.
The resulting structure is a bogie-less car transition module whose car body shell is formed predominantly by an integrated tank (as in Reference 1), and whose longitudinal forces are carried exclusively by a coupling rod/power-transmission module (as in Reference 5), thereby meeting all additional limitations of claim 14.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE — CLAIM 14
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to apply Reference 1’s integrated-tank concept to the bogie-less bridge box of Reference 5, whose shell has relatively low longitudinal load demands because longitudinal forces are carried by a dedicated power-transmission module (a coupling-rod function). Using the bridge-box shell predominantly as an integrated fuel tank is a natural way to exploit its unused volume for fuel storage while leaving longitudinal force transmission to the structural module, with predictable benefits in range and packaging.
CLAIM 15: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 15:
─────── 15. The rail vehicle car according to claim 9, wherein said at least one tank is formed of the same material as adjoining car body shell portions. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 15 OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 15 depends on claim 9, which is anticipated by Reference 1.
Additional limitation: “wherein said at least one tank is formed of the same material as adjoining car body shell portions.”
Reference 1 teaches that the tank 10 may be made from various structural materials suitable for pressure containment, including chromed steel (V2A), steel, aluminum, plastics, and fiber composite materials, and combinations thereof. The vehicle body 14 and support frame 12 are, in practice, also made from structural metals such as steel or aluminum, as indicated by the depiction of frame longitudinal members 52 and crossmembers 54 integrated with the tank 10.
Given that Reference 1 already contemplates constructing both the tank 10 and the surrounding vehicle body 14/support frame 12 from the same set of structural materials (steel or aluminum) and integrating structural elements 52, 54 into the tank’s outer structure, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to select the same material for the tank and the adjoining body shell portions. Doing so avoids differential thermal expansion, simplifies welding and joining processes, and reduces galvanic corrosion concerns, all of which are well-known engineering considerations in vehicle design.
Thus, while Reference 1 does not explicitly state “the tank is formed of the same material as adjoining car body shell portions,” it clearly suggests that both the tank and adjoining shell portions can and often would be made of the same material (e.g., steel or aluminum), and selecting such a configuration is a straightforward design choice routinely made by skilled practitioners.
Accordingly, the additional limitation of claim 15 would have been obvious in view of Reference 1 alone.
MOTIVATION TO MODIFY — CLAIM 15
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to choose the same metal material (e.g., steel or aluminum) for both the integrated tank and the adjoining car body shell portions in Reference 1, since the reference already teaches these same materials for both tank and structure. This design choice simplifies welding and fabrication, reduces thermal-mismatch issues, and mitigates galvanic corrosion, all of which are routine engineering considerations.
CLAIM 16: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
Claim 16:
─────── 16. The rail vehicle car according to claim 9, wherein said at least one tank is formed of fiber-reinforced plastic and adjoining car body shell portions are formed of metal. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 16 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
Claim 16 depends on claim 9, anticipated by Reference 1.
Additional limitation: “wherein said at least one tank is formed of fiber-reinforced plastic”
Reference 1 teaches that the tank 10 can be made from plastics or fiber composite materials, among other options, and even mentions combinations of materials. This explicitly encompasses fiber-reinforced plastic construction.
Reference 4, in the context of locomotive fuel storage tanks 24, further elaborates that pressure vessels for gaseous fuel can be made using fiber-reinforced composites. It describes storage tanks 24 containing compressed natural gas where the pressure vessels may be formed as all-metal, mostly-metal with fiber-reinforced overwrap, a metal liner with full fiber-reinforced composite overwrap carrying most of the load, or an all fiber-reinforced composite construction that is liner-free.
Together, References 1 and 4 show that fiber-reinforced composite (fiber-reinforced plastic) pressure vessels are conventional for gaseous fuel tanks in rail vehicles.
Additional limitation: “and adjoining car body shell portions are formed of metal.”
In Reference 1, the vehicle body 14 and support frame 12 (including frame longitudinal beams 52 and crossbeams 54) are structurally depicted and described as being made of structural metals, such as steel or aluminum, consistent with common practice for vehicle body structures. Reference 4 likewise describes the base 20 and support structures 18 of the fuel deck 14 as being made of steel and other structural metals.
Given these teachings, a skilled person would find it obvious to construct the integrated tank of Reference 1 using fiber-reinforced plastic technology as per Reference 4, while leaving the adjoining carbody shell portions (vehicle body 14, frame members 52, 54) as metal.
Thus, combining Reference 1’s integrated tank 10 with the composite pressure-vessel technology of Reference 4 yields a rail vehicle car in which the integrated tank is made of fiber-reinforced plastic and the adjoining carbody shell portions are metallic, as required by claim 16.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE — CLAIM 16
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the integrated tank of Reference 1 as a fiber-reinforced plastic pressure vessel, following Reference 4’s teaching of composite fuel tanks for gaseous fuels, while retaining metal for the surrounding car body shell. This predictable material split leverages composites’ high strength-to-weight and corrosion resistance for the tank, and metals’ established structural performance for the carbody, directly improving fuel storage performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613