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.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1: Salomonsen, US 2015/0367736 A1
REFERENCE 2: Badertscher, DE 20 2006 002 564 U1
REFERENCE 3: Raj, US 2019/0316734 A1
REFERENCE 4: Myers et al., US 2017/0145961 A1
REFERENCE 5: Treutler, DE 10 2013 208849 B4
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 GROUPINGS
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
CLAIMS 9 AND 15: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
─────── 9. An electric trainset, comprising: a rail vehicle car having a car body shell; 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 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
LIMITATION: “An electric trainset,”
Reference 1 teaches a train set including hybrid- or diesel-electric locomotive 10. Reference 1 further teaches electrical traction and electrical supply components associated with the train set, including traction motors 15, electric power generator 51, battery bank 54, battery charger 55, and battery management system 56.
Reference 1 also teaches generator carriage unit 50, which is connected with the train set and supplies electrical power. Generator carriage unit 50 includes electric power generator 51 driven by gas-driven engine or fuel cell 53, which receives gas from gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52. Reference 1 therefore teaches a train set in which electric power is generated, supplied, stored, and used for train operation.
Accordingly, Reference 1 teaches an electric trainset within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9.
LIMITATION: “comprising: a rail vehicle car having a car body shell;”
Reference 1 teaches generator carriage unit 50. Generator carriage unit 50 is a separate rail vehicle car within the train set because it is a carriage unit connected with locomotive 10 and used to carry power-supply equipment, including electric power generator 51, gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52, engine or fuel cell 53, and battery bank 54.
Reference 1 does not expressly describe the detailed structural construction of the outer body shell of generator carriage unit 50. However, Reference 2 teaches the relevant car body shell structure. Reference 2 teaches vehicle body 14 of a road and/or rail vehicle. Vehicle body 14 includes body shell portions such as side walls 34, load deck/roof structure 42, and associated frame/body structures. In the rail-vehicle embodiment of Reference 2, vehicle body 14 corresponds to a car body shell of a rail vehicle car.
It would have been obvious to use the integrated vehicle body construction of Reference 2 as the body construction for generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1. The resulting train set includes a rail vehicle car having a car body shell, namely generator carriage unit 50 configured with vehicle body 14.
LIMITATION: “and at least one tank for storing gaseous fuels,”
Reference 1 teaches gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52. Reference 1 further teaches that gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52 supplies gas, fuel gas, or hydrogen to engine or fuel cell 53, which drives electric power generator 51.
Hydrogen, compressed gas, fuel gas, and similar gas fuels are gaseous fuels within the scope of claim 9. Thus, Reference 1 teaches at least one tank or storage facility 52 for storing gaseous fuels in the electric trainset environment.
Reference 2 also teaches tank 10 for storing liquid and/or gaseous media. A gaseous fuel is a species of gaseous media. Therefore, Reference 2 also teaches a tank structurally suitable for storing gaseous fuels.
LIMITATION: “said at least one tank being integrated into said car body shell,”
Reference 1 teaches gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52 carried in generator carriage unit 50. Reference 1 therefore teaches the use of gaseous-fuel storage in a rail vehicle car of an electric trainset.
Reference 2 teaches the structural improvement of integrating tank 10 into vehicle body 14. Reference 2 does not merely place an unrelated bottle externally on a vehicle. Rather, Reference 2 teaches tank 10 arranged in and integrated into vehicle body 14, with tank 10 structurally cooperating with support frame 12 and vehicle body 14. Reference 2 further shows tank 10 in association with deck surface 22, side walls 34, load deck/roof structure 42, longitudinal beams 52, crossbeams 54, baffles 58, and transverse walls 60.
In the proposed combination, the gaseous-fuel storage facility 52 of Reference 1 is implemented using the integrated tank structure of Reference 2. The resulting generator carriage unit 50 has a tank integrated into its car body shell, as required by claim 9.
LIMITATION: “and said at least one tank having walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within said car body shell.”
Reference 2 teaches tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14 and configured as a structural part of the vehicle body arrangement. Reference 2 teaches that tank 10 may be self-supporting. A self-supporting tank necessarily has walls constructed to carry mechanical loads.
Reference 2 also teaches deck surface 22 associated with tank 10. Deck surface 22 is walkable and drivable. A walkable and drivable deck associated with tank 10 requires the tank walls and tank-associated structure to bear loads imposed by persons, goods, or vehicles on the deck surface. Thus, tank 10 has walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within vehicle body 14.
Reference 2 further teaches longitudinal beams 52, crossbeams 54, baffles 58, and transverse walls 60 associated with tank 10. These elements cooperate with tank 10 to distribute loads, increase stiffness, and provide a structural tank arrangement within vehicle body 14. The presence of support frame 12 does not avoid the claim because claim 9 requires only that the tank walls assume “a load-bearing function,” not that they assume the only load-bearing function or the primary load-bearing function.
Accordingly, Reference 2 teaches tank 10 having walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within vehicle body 14. When this structure is applied to the generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1, the resulting electric trainset includes at least one tank integrated into the car body shell and having walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within that car body shell.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 9
Reference 1 teaches the electric trainset environment, including locomotive 10, generator carriage unit 50, electric power generator 51, gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52, gas-driven engine or fuel cell 53, battery bank 54, and traction motors 15.
Reference 2 teaches the structural tank/body-shell arrangement, including tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14 and tank walls configured to perform a load-bearing function through the self-supporting tank arrangement, walkable/drivable deck surface 22, longitudinal beams 52, crossbeams 54, baffles 58, and transverse walls 60.
The combination teaches or renders obvious every limitation of claim 9.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the electric trainset and generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1 to use the integrated, load-bearing tank/body construction of Reference 2. Doing so would predictably increase gaseous-fuel storage volume, reduce separate tank-support structure, improve packaging inside the rail vehicle car, and provide a structurally efficient gaseous-fuel storage arrangement for supplying engine or fuel cell 53 and electric power generator 51 in the electric trainset.
─────── 15. The electric trainset 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 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
LIMITATION: “wherein said at least one tank is formed of the same material as adjoining car body shell portions.”
Reference 2 teaches tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14. Reference 2 further teaches that tank 10 may be formed from structural materials suitable for vehicle construction, including steel and aluminum, as well as other materials. Reference 2 also teaches adjoining vehicle body and frame structures, including support frame 12, side walls 34, longitudinal beams 52, and crossbeams 54.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form tank 10 and adjoining car body shell portions from the same material, such as steel or aluminum. The reason is straightforward: Reference 2 integrates tank 10 into vehicle body 14, and when two adjoining structural portions are integrated, using the same material facilitates joining, welding, forming, thermal compatibility, repair, and structural design.
The claim does not require any particular material, thickness, alloy, heat treatment, joining method, or pressure rating. It only requires that the tank and adjoining shell portions be formed of the same material. Selecting steel for both tank 10 and adjoining shell portions, or selecting aluminum for both tank 10 and adjoining shell portions, would have been a routine and predictable material-selection choice for the integrated vehicle body 14 of Reference 2 as applied to generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 15
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the integrated tank and adjoining car body shell portions of the same structural material because Reference 2 already teaches integrating tank 10 into vehicle body 14. Using the same material would simplify manufacturing and joining, reduce thermal-expansion mismatch, improve structural compatibility, and produce a predictable integrated body/tank construction for the electric trainset of Reference 1.
====== CLAIMS 10, 11, AND 13: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
─────── 10. The electric trainset 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 partially 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 AND REFERENCE 3
LIMITATION: “wherein said car body shell has a longitudinal portion and walls with a cross section,”
Reference 2 teaches vehicle body 14. Vehicle body 14 has a length, and therefore has longitudinal portions along that length. Vehicle body 14 also includes walls and body portions defining a cross-sectional envelope, including side walls 34 and load deck/roof structure 42.
Reference 3 likewise teaches rail tender 10 having double-hulled tank 12 supported on or integrated with rolling stock chassis 14. Double-hulled tank 12 includes inner tank 16 and outer tank 18. Tank 12 extends longitudinally along rail tender 10 and defines a cross-sectional tank/body envelope.
Accordingly, the combined teachings disclose a car body shell having a longitudinal portion and walls with a cross section.
LIMITATION: “and said longitudinal portion is formed at least partially by said at least one tank over an entirety of said cross section.”
Reference 2 teaches tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14. Reference 2 therefore teaches that the tank forms at least part of the vehicle body structure.
Reference 3 further teaches rail tender 10 in which double-hulled tank 12, including outer tank 18 and inner tank 16, occupies a substantial longitudinal portion of the rail vehicle and defines a major portion of the vehicle cross-sectional envelope. Outer tank 18 surrounds the fuel-storage volume and forms the outer tank structure extending along the length of rail tender 10.
Applicant has amended claim 10 to require only that the longitudinal portion is formed “at least partially” by the tank over the entirety of the cross section. This is a broad limitation. It does not require the tank to form the entire cross section. It does not require the tank to form the primary load path. It does not require that every point of the cross section be made only of tank wall material. It requires only that the longitudinal portion be formed at least partially by the tank over the entirety of the cross section.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the integrated tank 10 of Reference 2, when used in the generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1, in the cross-sectional tank-envelope style taught by Reference 3. In that configuration, the tank structure forms at least part of the longitudinal body portion across the car body cross section, thereby satisfying the amended limitation.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 10
Reference 1 supplies the electric trainset and generator carriage environment. Reference 2 supplies tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14. Reference 3 supplies the rail vehicle tank-envelope arrangement using double-hulled tank 12, inner tank 16, outer tank 18, and rolling stock chassis 14. Together, the references teach or render obvious a car body shell having a longitudinal portion and walls with a cross section, wherein the longitudinal portion is formed at least partially by the tank over the entirety of the cross section.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 10
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the electric trainset generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1, as structurally improved by Reference 2’s integrated tank 10, to use the cross-sectional tank-envelope arrangement of Reference 3. Doing so would predictably increase usable gaseous-fuel capacity, make more efficient use of the rail vehicle car’s width and height, and reduce duplicative separate shell and tank-support structure.
─────── 11. The electric trainset 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 AND REFERENCE 3
LIMITATION: “wherein said car body shell has an end wall or an intermediate wall,”
Reference 2 teaches vehicle body 14. Vehicle body 14 is a vehicle body shell and necessarily includes end regions. Reference 2 also teaches transverse walls 60 and baffles 58 within tank 10. Transverse walls 60 are wall structures extending across the tank/body structure and are reasonably understood as intermediate wall or bulkhead structures within the integrated tank/body arrangement.
Reference 3 teaches rail tender 10 having double-hulled tank 12, inner tank 16, and outer tank 18. A rail vehicle tank body of this type necessarily includes end-wall or bulkhead structures closing the tank at the longitudinal ends and supporting the tank/body envelope.
Thus, the combined references teach a car body shell having an end wall or intermediate wall.
LIMITATION: “and said longitudinal portion completely encloses said end wall or said intermediate wall.”
Reference 2 teaches transverse walls 60 located within tank 10. Because transverse walls 60 are located within the tank structure, the surrounding tank shell of tank 10 encloses those transverse wall structures. The same is true of baffles 58, which are internal tank structures enclosed by the tank body.
Reference 3 teaches double-hulled tank 12 with outer tank 18 surrounding inner tank 16 and the tank’s internal tank structure. When the tank body is used to define the longitudinal car body portion, the tank envelope surrounds transverse structures associated with the tank and car body.
In the proposed combination, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have aligned an end wall or intermediate wall of the rail vehicle car with transverse wall 60 or another bulkhead-like structure and enclosed that wall within the longitudinal tank portion. This arrangement would be a predictable structural adaptation because Reference 2 already teaches transverse walls 60 inside tank 10, and Reference 3 teaches a rail vehicle body dominated by a tank envelope 12, 18.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 11
The combination of References 1, 2, and 3 teaches or renders obvious an electric trainset having a car body shell with an end wall or intermediate wall, wherein the longitudinal tank portion completely encloses the end wall or intermediate wall.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 11
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to enclose an end wall or intermediate wall within the longitudinal tank portion because Reference 2 already teaches transverse walls 60 and baffles 58 located within tank 10, and Reference 3 teaches a rail vehicle tank-envelope arrangement. Enclosing the wall within the tank shell would maintain a continuous tank envelope, increase structural stiffness, preserve internal compartmentation, and avoid unnecessary interruption of the fuel-storage volume.
─────── 13. The electric trainset 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 AND REFERENCE 3
LIMITATION: “wherein: said car body shell has bogie regions and a length;”
Reference 3 teaches rail tender 10 having rolling stock chassis 14. Rail tender 10 has a longitudinal length. Rolling stock chassis 14 is associated with rail running gear and support regions, and those support regions correspond to bogie regions of the rail vehicle.
Reference 1 teaches train set components including locomotive 10 and generator carriage unit 50. Such rail vehicle cars have a length and are supported by rail running gear. In the proposed combination, generator carriage unit 50 is structurally implemented using the integrated vehicle body/tank construction of Reference 2 and the tank-envelope arrangement of Reference 3. The resulting car body shell has both a length and bogie regions.
LIMITATION: “the rail vehicle is equipped with end-side bogies or the rail vehicle is configured as an articulated train car;”
This limitation is written in the alternative. It is met if the rail vehicle is equipped with end-side bogies.
Reference 3 teaches rail tender 10 supported by rolling stock chassis 14. A conventional rail tender has truck or bogie support regions at or near the longitudinal ends of the vehicle. These are end-side bogies or end-side truck support regions within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Reference 1 likewise teaches train set rail vehicles, including locomotive 10 and generator carriage unit 50, which are rail vehicles supported by rail running gear. In the proposed combination, the generator carriage unit 50 would be supported in the conventional manner by end-side bogie regions.
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.”
Reference 3 teaches double-hulled tank 12 disposed centrally along rail tender 10. Double-hulled tank 12, including inner tank 16 and outer tank 18, extends longitudinally over a substantial length of rail tender 10 and occupies the main central tank/body volume.
Reference 2 teaches tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14. When the integrated tank 10 of Reference 2 is applied to generator carriage unit 50 of Reference 1 and arranged according to the central rail tender tank arrangement of Reference 3, the tank-formed longitudinal portion would be disposed centrally outside the bogie regions and would extend over the length of the car body shell.
The claim does not require that the tank occupy literally every inch of car length. Nor does it require that the tank be the sole load-bearing structure over that length. It requires that the longitudinal portion formed by the tank is disposed centrally outside the bogie regions and over the length of the car body shell. The central elongated tank 12 of Reference 3 teaches this arrangement, and the combination with References 1 and 2 renders it obvious.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 13
The combination of References 1, 2, and 3 teaches or renders obvious a car body shell having bogie regions and a length, an end-side-bogie rail vehicle configuration, and a longitudinal tank portion disposed centrally outside the bogie regions and over the length of the car body shell.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 13
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to locate the integrated tank portion centrally between end-side bogie regions and extend it over the car body length because Reference 3 teaches a rail tender 10 with tank 12 occupying the main central longitudinal volume. This arrangement would predictably maximize fuel capacity, balance the mass of the stored gaseous fuel between the bogie regions, and reduce inefficient use of otherwise available central carbody volume in the electric trainset of Reference 1.
====== CLAIM 12: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND REFERENCE 3, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
─────── 12. The electric trainset 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, REFERENCE 3, AND REFERENCE 4
LIMITATION: “wherein: said car body shell has bogie regions;”
Reference 3 teaches rail tender 10 with rolling stock chassis 14. The rail tender is supported by rail running gear associated with chassis 14. Those support areas define bogie regions.
Reference 4 expressly teaches locomotive 10 supported by trucks 12. The regions of locomotive 10 associated with trucks 12 correspond to bogie regions. Thus, Reference 4 confirms the conventional rail-vehicle arrangement in which a rail vehicle body has bogie or truck support regions.
LIMITATION: “end-side bogies or a single bogie is disposed centrally in a longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle car;”
This limitation is written in the alternative. It is met if end-side bogies are provided.
Reference 4 teaches locomotive 10 having trucks 12 positioned along the longitudinal direction of the locomotive. Those trucks 12 support the rail vehicle and define end-side truck or bogie regions.
Reference 3 likewise teaches rail tender 10 supported by rolling stock chassis 14, which corresponds to a conventional end-side bogie/truck support arrangement. Therefore, the claimed alternative of end-side bogies is taught or rendered obvious.
LIMITATION: “and said longitudinal portion formed by said at least one tank includes an overhang lying outside said bogie regions.”
Reference 1 teaches generator carriage unit 50 within an electric trainset. Reference 2 teaches integrating tank 10 into vehicle body 14. Reference 3 teaches an elongated central tank 12 forming a substantial longitudinal portion of rail tender 10. Reference 4 teaches a rail vehicle body supported by trucks 12, with the body and associated structures extending longitudinally relative to those truck regions.
In rail vehicle design, portions of the body extending beyond or outside the truck/bogie regions are overhang portions. Reference 4’s locomotive 10 supported by trucks 12 illustrates the relevant rail vehicle relationship between body length and truck regions. Reference 4 also teaches fuel deck 14, base 20, ceiling 22, support structures 18, fuel storage tanks 24, and fuel storage bays 30, showing that fuel-storage components are placed within elongated rail vehicle structural regions associated with truck-supported bodies.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to extend the tank-formed longitudinal portion of the combined References 1, 2, and 3 arrangement into an available overhang region outside the bogie regions. Doing so would increase fuel-storage volume without increasing the width or height of the rail vehicle car.
The claim does not require that the entire overhang be tank structure. It requires only that the longitudinal portion formed by the tank includes an overhang lying outside the bogie regions. Extending the integrated tank portion into such an overhang is a predictable design choice in view of the rail vehicle truck/bogie arrangement and fuel-storage packaging taught by Reference 4.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 12
Reference 1 supplies the electric trainset and generator carriage. Reference 2 supplies the integrated tank/body-shell structure. Reference 3 supplies the elongated rail-vehicle tank-body arrangement. Reference 4 supplies the rail vehicle bogie/truck support arrangement and fuel-storage placement in a truck-supported rail vehicle. Together, the references render obvious a tank-formed longitudinal portion including an overhang lying outside the bogie regions.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 12
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to extend the tank-formed longitudinal portion into an overhang outside the bogie regions because References 3 and 4 teach elongated rail vehicles supported by truck/bogie regions and Reference 2 teaches integrating the tank into the vehicle body. Extending the tank into an available overhang would predictably increase gaseous-fuel capacity, improve packaging efficiency, and use available carbody volume without increasing the rail vehicle’s width or height.
====== CLAIM 14: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 5
─────── 14. The electric trainset 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 partially as said at least one tank. ───────
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND REFERENCE 5
LIMITATION: “wherein: the rail vehicle car is configured as a bogie-less car transition module having ends and a coupling rod;”
Reference 5 teaches vehicle bridge box 10 for a multi-part rail vehicle 100. Vehicle bridge box 10 is arranged between adjacent rail cars 101 and 102. Vehicle bridge box 10 has support points 23 at its end regions and is bogie-less because it is supported by adjacent rail cars rather than by its own bogies.
Reference 5 further teaches force-transmission structures, including underframe module 40 and power-transmission module 60. These modules extend between support points 23 and transmit forces between adjacent rail cars 101 and 102. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “coupling rod” reads on an elongated structural force-transmission member or module that couples adjacent car bodies and transmits longitudinal forces between them. Underframe module 40 and/or power-transmission module 60 therefore teaches the coupling-rod function.
Reference 1 teaches the electric trainset environment. It would have been obvious to incorporate the bogie-less transition module concept of Reference 5 into the electric trainset of Reference 1.
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 teaches that tensile and/or compressive forces between adjacent rail cars 101 and 102 are transmitted by a dedicated force-transmission structure, namely underframe module 40 and/or power-transmission module 60, extending between support points 23.
Reference 5 separately identifies shell and body modules, including side walls 11 and 12, roof 13, floor 14, entry modules 20, toilet module 30, and roof module 50. This modular arrangement teaches separating the longitudinal force-transmission function from the shell and functional modules of vehicle bridge box 10.
Accordingly, Reference 5 teaches the claimed concept that longitudinal forces between adjoining car bodies are transmitted through a coupling-rod-like force-transmission module, without requiring the car body shell of the transition module to transmit those longitudinal forces.
LIMITATION: “and said car body shell is configured at least partially as said at least one tank.”
Reference 2 teaches tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14. Reference 2 further teaches tank 10 configured to assume a load-bearing function within the vehicle body through its self-supporting construction, deck surface 22, longitudinal beams 52, crossbeams 54, baffles 58, and transverse walls 60.
Applicant amended claim 14 to require only that the car body shell is configured “at least partially” as the tank. This is broad. It does not require the entire car body shell to be configured as a tank. It does not require the tank to transmit longitudinal forces between the adjoining car bodies. In fact, claim 14 separately requires that the coupling rod exclusively transmits those longitudinal forces.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the integrated tank/body-shell teaching of Reference 2 to at least part of the car body shell of the bogie-less transition module of Reference 5, within the electric trainset environment of Reference 1. Because Reference 5’s underframe module 40 or power-transmission module 60 handles the longitudinal force transmission, portions of the bridge box shell are available to be configured for other functional uses, including gaseous-fuel storage.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 14
Reference 1 supplies the electric trainset environment. Reference 2 supplies the integrated tank/body-shell structure. Reference 5 supplies the bogie-less transition module with support points 23, adjacent rail cars 101 and 102, underframe module 40, and power-transmission module 60. Together, the references teach or render obvious a bogie-less car transition module in which a coupling-rod-like module transmits longitudinal forces and the car body shell is configured at least partially as the tank.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 14
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure at least part of Reference 5’s bogie-less transition module shell as the integrated tank taught by Reference 2 when used in the electric trainset of Reference 1. Reference 5’s dedicated longitudinal force-transmission module 40 or 60 leaves shell portions of bridge box 10 available for fuel-storage packaging, and using those shell portions for gaseous-fuel storage would predictably increase fuel capacity while preserving the separate longitudinal force path between adjacent rail cars 101 and 102.
====== CLAIM 16: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
─────── 16. The electric trainset 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 2 AND REFERENCE 4
LIMITATION: “wherein said at least one tank is formed of fiber-reinforced plastic”
Reference 2 teaches that tank 10 may be formed of plastic or fiber-composite materials. Fiber-composite materials include fiber-reinforced plastic materials such as glass-fiber-reinforced plastic and carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic.
Reference 4 further teaches fuel storage tanks 24 for gaseous fuels in a rail vehicle environment. Reference 4 teaches high-pressure fuel storage tank arrangements in locomotive 10 and teaches that fuel storage tanks 24 may use composite pressure-vessel technology. This confirms that fiber-reinforced composite pressure vessels were known and suitable for gaseous-fuel storage in rail vehicles.
Thus, References 2 and 4 teach or render obvious forming the integrated tank from fiber-reinforced plastic.
LIMITATION: “and adjoining car body shell portions are formed of metal.”
Reference 2 teaches vehicle body 14 and support frame 12, including adjoining structural elements such as side walls 34, longitudinal beams 52, and crossbeams 54. Such vehicle body and support structures are conventional metal structural components, including steel or aluminum.
Reference 4 teaches locomotive 10 having structural components including fuel deck 14, engine deck 16, support structures 18, base 20, and ceiling 22. These adjoining rail vehicle structural components are conventionally metallic because they must provide strength, stiffness, durability, and crashworthiness.
It would have been obvious to form tank 10 from fiber-reinforced plastic while maintaining adjoining car body shell portions as metal. This material combination predictably uses fiber-reinforced plastic for pressure containment and weight reduction, while retaining metal for robust structural shell and frame portions.
CONCLUSION FOR CLAIM 16
Reference 1 supplies the electric trainset environment. Reference 2 supplies the integrated tank/body-shell arrangement and suggests fiber-composite tank materials. Reference 4 confirms the use of composite gaseous-fuel storage tanks 24 in a rail vehicle fuel-storage environment and metal structural components such as fuel deck 14, support structures 18, base 20, and ceiling 22. Together, the references render obvious an electric trainset wherein the tank is formed of fiber-reinforced plastic and adjoining car body shell portions are formed of metal.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 16
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the integrated tank from fiber-reinforced plastic while retaining adjoining car body shell portions as metal because Reference 2 teaches fiber-composite tank materials and Reference 4 teaches composite gaseous-fuel tanks 24 in a metal rail-vehicle structural environment. This material combination would predictably reduce tank weight, improve pressure-vessel performance, and preserve the strength and durability of adjoining metal car body shell portions in the electric trainset of Reference 1.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s remarks filed in response to the prior Office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claim 9 to recite “An electric trainset” and amended claims 10 and 14 by replacing “at least predominantly” with “at least partially.” The prior § 102 rejection of claim 9 over Badertscher alone is withdrawn. The prior § 112(b) rejection based on “at least predominantly” is also withdrawn as moot. However, the amended claims remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues that amended claim 9 is distinguishable because it now recites an electric trainset. This argument is not persuasive because Reference 1 expressly teaches the electric trainset environment now claimed. Reference 1 teaches locomotive 10, generator carriage unit 50, electric power generator 51, gas container or hydrogen storage facility 52, gas-driven engine or fuel cell 53, battery bank 54, battery charger 55, battery management system 56, and traction motors 15. Thus, the rejection now begins with an electric trainset reference as the primary reference.
Applicant’s remarks appear to urge a narrow construction of “electric trainset” based on an external definition of a particular type of multiple-unit rail vehicle. This argument is not commensurate with the claim language. Claim 9 does not recite an electric multiple unit, a train formed only from motorized railcars, a passenger multiple-unit train, a catenary-powered train, or a rail vehicle car in which every car is self-propelled. Claim 9 recites only “An electric trainset” comprising a rail vehicle car having a car body shell and an integrated gaseous-fuel tank. During examination, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under that interpretation, Reference 1’s train set with locomotive 10, generator carriage unit 50, electric power generator 51, battery bank 54, and traction motors 15 satisfies the “electric trainset” language.
Applicant further argues that the cited references fail to teach tank walls forming the load-bearing outer skin within the car body’s primary load path. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 9. Claim 9 does not recite “outer skin.” Claim 9 does not recite “primary load path.” Claim 9 does not recite “bending/shear between bogie regions.” Claim 9 does not recite that the tank walls are the only load-bearing structure. Claim 9 recites only that the tank has walls “constructed to assume a load-bearing function within said car body shell.”
The phrase “a load-bearing function” is broader than “the primary load-bearing function.” A structure can assume a load-bearing function even when other structures, such as support frame 12, bogies, chassis members, longitudinal beams 52, crossbeams 54, or other car body shell portions, also carry load. Reference 2 teaches tank 10 integrated into vehicle body 14, teaches that tank 10 may be self-supporting, and teaches deck surface 22 that is walkable and drivable. Reference 2 also teaches structural elements including longitudinal beams 52, crossbeams 54, baffles 58, and transverse walls 60 associated with tank 10. These teachings are sufficient to show that tank 10 has walls constructed to assume a load-bearing function within vehicle body 14.
Applicant characterizes Reference 2 as a vessel-on-frame arrangement. This characterization does not overcome the rejection. Claim 9 does not exclude a frame. Claim 9 does not exclude other load-bearing members. Claim 9 does not require that the tank be the sole structure supporting the car body shell. Claim 9 only requires that the tank walls assume a load-bearing function within the car body shell. Reference 2 satisfies that broad limitation through its integrated, self-supporting, walkable/drivable tank arrangement.
Applicant also argues that tender-type or fuel-deck references do not teach a passenger electric multiple-unit car body. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite a passenger electric multiple-unit car body. Further, Reference 3 and Reference 4 are not relied upon to teach every limitation of claim 9. Reference 3 is relied upon for dependent-claim features involving a longitudinal cross-sectional tank envelope and central tank disposition. Reference 4 is relied upon for the bogie/overhang/fuel-storage and composite-tank material teachings. Reference 1 supplies the electric trainset environment, and Reference 2 supplies the integrated load-bearing tank/body-shell structure.
Applicant argues that Reference 5 teaches a bogie-less bridge box with a separate power-transmission module rather than a tank-based shell. This argument is not persuasive because Reference 5 is relied upon for precisely the bogie-less transition module and separated longitudinal-force-transmission arrangement recited in claim 14. Reference 5 teaches vehicle bridge box 10 between adjacent rail cars 101 and 102, support points 23, underframe module 40, and power-transmission module 60. Reference 2 supplies the integrated tank/body-shell concept. The combination renders obvious configuring at least part of the bridge box shell as a tank while longitudinal forces are transmitted through module 40 or module 60.
Applicant’s amendment from “at least predominantly” to “at least partially” in claims 10 and 14 does not overcome the prior art. “At least partially” is broader than “at least predominantly.” A structure formed predominantly by a tank is necessarily formed at least partially by that tank. Thus, the amendment does not distinguish the claims over the applied references.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 10–16 are allowable because they depend from claim 9. This argument is not persuasive because amended claim 9 remains unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. The dependent claims also remain unpatentable for the specific reasons set forth in the individual claim analyses above.
Accordingly, applicant’s amendments and arguments do not place claims 9–16 in condition for allowance.
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.
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, 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights