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 statements (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2023, 08/21/2023, and 09/24/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously-noted 35 U.S.C. 112(b) clarity concerns are considered to be resolved by Applicant’s amendment/deletions as indicated in the marked-up claim text. No 112 rejections are made in this updated action.
REFERENCES RELIED UPON
Reference 1: DE 31 37 544 C2 (Steckel) (“Attachable shunting step for railway vehicles”).
Reference 2: US 8,870,000 B2 / US 2014/0197122 A1 (Peach et al.) (“Auto-rack railroad car vehicle wheel chock hanger”).
Reference 3: US 9,403,541 B2 (Henrici) (“Portable railcar sill step extender”).
Reference 4: US 1,166,859 (Schroeder) (“Freight-Car Ladder”).
Reference 5: US 4,067,264 (radio-controlled shunting locomotive with end shelter cabins and open end platforms).
Reference 6: DE 20 2019 005 439 U1 / corresponding Cattron family reference (“Arrangement for mounting a portable remote-controllable locomotive system housing on a locomotive handrail”)
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.
REJECTION I
Claims 14-15, 20-21, 24, 26-28, 31-32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2).
REJECTION II
Claims 16, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2) and further in view of Henrici (Reference 3).
REJECTION III
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2) and further in view of Cattron (Reference 6).
REJECTION IV
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2) and further in view of Schroeder (Reference 4) and Henrici (Reference 3).
REJECTION V
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2) and further in view of Schroeder (Reference 4), Henrici (Reference 3), and Reference 5.
REJECTION VI
Claim 29-30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2) and further in view of Reference 5.
REJECTION VII
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steckel (Reference 1) in view of Peach et al. (Reference 2) and further in view of Schroeder (Reference 4) and Henrici (Reference 3).
DETAILED CLAIM-BY-CLAIM ANALYSIS AND MOTIVATION STATEMENTS
──────────────────────────────────────── ──────────────────────── 14. An attachment part for a rail vehicle, the attachment part comprising: a mounting element configured for storing tools in the form of stop blocks; an interface configured for attaching a step or a platform; a fastening region configured to permit said fastening region to be fitted to a standard interface of the rail vehicle; and the attachment part configured to be releasably fitted to a rail vehicle structure of the rail vehicle for permitting occurring forces to be transmitted to the rail vehicle structure. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 14 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches an attachment part for a rail vehicle in the form of an attachable shunting-step assembly including step holder 1, step grate 2, support saddle 4, push-on sleeves 6, buffer flange screw connections 5 at standardized distance 14, prism part 8, and clamping part 9, arranged so the assembly is releasably mounted to the rail vehicle and transmits operator load into the rail vehicle structure.
As to “a mounting element configured for storing tools in the form of stop blocks,” Peach teaches a vehicle wheel chock hanger attached to the inner surface of a side wall panel of an auto-rack railroad car, including a mounting base and a rack configured to hold multiple different chocks for storage, and further teaches that the stored chocks are securely held in their stored positions during normal movement and during switching. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a wheel chock is a stop block, i.e., a block-like restraint used to stop or prevent wheel movement. Peach therefore teaches a mounting element configured for storing tools in the form of stop blocks.
As to “an interface configured for attaching a step or a platform,” Steckel teaches the interface for a step via step holder 1 and step grate 2.
As to “a fastening region configured to permit said fastening region to be fitted to a standard interface of the rail vehicle,” Steckel teaches the standardized buffer flange screw connection 5 at standardized distance 14 and the corresponding push-on sleeves 6 of the support saddle 4.
As to “the attachment part configured to be releasably fitted to a rail vehicle structure ... for permitting occurring forces to be transmitted to the rail vehicle structure,” Steckel teaches releasable mounting by sleeves 6 and clamping part 9, with loads transferred through the support saddle 4 and prism part 8 into the vehicle structure.
CLAIM 14 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Steckel’s attachable shunting-step assembly to include Peach’s known chock-storage mounting element because Peach expressly identifies the need to keep chocks securely stored and out of the way during railcar movement and switching, while Steckel provides the operator-accessible attachment structure used during switching operations. Combining the two yields the predictable benefit of keeping stop blocks/chocks immediately available at the switching position while preserving releasable mounting and load transfer.
──────────────────────── 15. The attachment part according to claim 14, which further comprises a lower part and an upper part of the attachment part, said interface is configured for fitting the step as a switching step in at least one of said lower part or said upper part of the attachment part. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 15 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the lower part through step holder 1 and step grate 2 and teaches an upper part through railing 29 and holding rod 30. Steckel also teaches the step as a shunting/switching step used during radio-controlled shunting operation. Thus, the interface fits the step as a switching step in at least the lower part of the attachment part.
CLAIM 15 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 14 is required. Steckel already provides the lower step region and upper support region, and Peach’s stop-block holder can be integrated without changing that arrangement.
──────────────────────── 16. The attachment part according to claim 15, wherein said interface is configured for attaching the platform as a switching platform or a maintenance platform in at least one of said lower part or said upper part of the attachment part. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 16 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the lower/upper-part arrangement and the switching-step arrangement as discussed above. Henrici expressly teaches platform system 78 including platform 80 and side plates 82, with apertures allowing removable mounting of the platform system to the step extender. Henrici therefore teaches an interface configured for attaching a platform. The combined teachings render obvious a switching platform or maintenance platform attached in the lower standing region of the attachment.
CLAIM 16 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to adapt Steckel’s step interface to accept the removable platform taught by Henrici because both references concern worker-support structures on rail vehicles, and Henrici predictably enlarges or formalizes the standing surface without changing Steckel’s attachment principle.
──────────────────────── 17. The attachment part according to claim 14, wherein said mounting element is also configured to hold a signal as the tools. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 17 ANALYSIS
Claim 17 further requires:
“wherein said mounting element is also configured to hold a signal as the tools.”
Cattron (Reference 6) teaches a mounting arrangement 100 usable for mounting a speaker 132 to a locomotive handrail 116. Cattron further teaches a speaker console/bracket 180 attached to the mounting arrangement, with vertically aligned mounting holes 182 and additional mounting holes 184 for attaching speaker 132. Cattron also teaches that speaker 132 is part of an acoustic warning system for the locomotive. Thus, Cattron teaches a mounting element configured to hold a signal.
Accordingly, after modifying Steckel with Peach et al. so the attachment part includes a mounting element configured for storing tools in the form of stop blocks as required by claim 14, it would have been obvious to further configure that mounting element so that it also holds a signal, by incorporating Cattron’s known signal-holding speaker arrangement onto the same overall attachment assembly. Claim 17 does not require that the stop blocks and the signal be retained in the same exact receptacle, nor does it require a single one-piece holder. The claim is satisfied by an attachment part having a mounting element assembly that is configured both to store stop blocks and to hold a signal.
CLAIM 17 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (INDIVIDUAL)
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 Peach stop-block storage arrangement, as incorporated into Steckel’s attachment part, so that the mounting element also holds a signal using Cattron’s speaker-mounting arrangement, because both the stop blocks and the signal are switching-related accessories desirably kept at an operator-accessible exterior location on the rail vehicle. Doing so would have predictably consolidated safety and switching equipment at the same attachment location, improved operator access, and reduced the need for separate mounts at different positions on the vehicle, while preserving the known functions of each component.
──────────────────────── 18. The attachment part according to claim 14, which further comprises a lower part and an upper part of the attachment part, said platform being a switchman’s platform or a maintenance platform disposed in at least one of said lower or said upper part. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 18 ANALYSIS
Claim 18 further requires:
“which further comprises a lower part and an upper part of the attachment part,”
Steckel teaches a lower standing/step region and an upper support region, including the lower step arrangement and the upper railing/holding structure of the attachable shunting-step assembly.
“said platform being a switchman’s platform or a maintenance platform disposed in at least one of said lower or said upper part.”
Henrici (Reference 3) teaches a platform system having a platform and a pair of side plates disposed substantially at right angles to the platform, with the side plates configured for removable attachment in the railcar-step context. Henrici therefore teaches a worker-support platform suitable as a switchman’s platform or maintenance platform. In the combined arrangement, that platform is disposed in the lower standing region of the attachment part.
CLAIM 18 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (INDIVIDUAL)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide Henrici’s removable platform structure on Steckel’s attachment part, as modified with Peach et al. for stop-block storage, because Henrici teaches a known way to provide a worker-support platform in conjunction with a railcar step arrangement. Applying Henrici’s platform to Steckel would predictably enlarge or formalize the worker-support area for switching or maintenance use, while Peach’s mounting element would continue to provide the claimed stop-block storage feature of claim 14.
──────────────────────── 20. The attachment part according to claim 14, wherein said interface is configured for fitting at least one of a handle or a bar. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 20 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches a handle/bar arrangement through railing 29 and holding rod 30 attached to the shunting-step assembly. The interface is therefore configured for fitting at least one of a handle or a bar.
CLAIM 20 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 14 is required because Steckel already provides the claimed handle/bar structures.
──────────────────────── 21. The attachment part according to claim 14, wherein said interface is configured for fitting at least one of a hand grip or a handlebar or a footstep or a handlebar for a switchman’s platform. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 21 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the footstep via step grate 2 and teaches the hand grip/handlebar via railing 29 and holding rod 30. Thus, the interface is configured for the recited alternatives.
CLAIM 21 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 14 is required because Steckel already provides the claimed footstep and handlebar/handgrip structures.
──────────────────────── 22. The attachment part according to claim 14, wherein said fastening region is configured to be fitted to a lateral standard interface of a rail vehicle, the lateral standard interface being an arrangement of holes provided with a thread, and said fastening region including an identical arrangement of holes permitting said fastening region to be screwed to the interface. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 22 ANALYSIS
Peach teaches a lateral rail-vehicle mounting environment through an inner side wall panel of an auto-rack railroad car, teaches side wall panel holes 23, and teaches a mounting base 202/body 206 having attachment slot 221 aligned with the storage-pan holes and side wall panel holes 23 for attachment to the side wall panel. Schroeder further teaches a lateral removable attachment with brackets and bolt openings 7 for attaching/detaching from the outside of the railcar. Henrici teaches the threaded-fastening aspect by disclosing twist handle screw 26 screwed into threaded aperture 48. The combined teachings render obvious a lateral standard interface defined by an arrangement of holes provided with thread, together with a fastening region having a corresponding arrangement of holes permitting the attachment to be screwed to the interface.
CLAIM 22 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement Peach’s known lateral sidewall mounting using the aligned-hole pattern of Schroeder and the screw-thread arrangement of Henrici because doing so predictably provides a repeatable, removable, externally serviceable rail-vehicle interface for the attachment part.
──────────────────────── 23. The attachment part according to claim 22, wherein said fastening region is configured to be fitted to a lateral standard interface of a rail vehicle with an end cab. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 23 ANALYSIS
Reference 5 expressly teaches a radio-controlled shunting locomotive having, at each end, an open platform and, more inwardly from each end, a shelter cabin, with steps at each side. That is an end-cab locomotive environment. Applying the lateral standardized interface of claim 22 to that known end-cab shunting locomotive would have been obvious.
CLAIM 23 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the lateral standardized interface of claim 22 on the end-cab switching locomotive of Reference 5 because such locomotives predictably benefit from externally accessible steps, platforms, and mounted tools near the operator’s end working area.
──────────────────────── 24. The attachment part according to claim 14, wherein the attachment part has a region intended to be fastened to the rail vehicle, and the attachment part is shaped as a plate at least in said region. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 24 ANALYSIS
Peach teaches mounting base 202 including a substantially flat substantially rectangular body 206 attached to the side wall panel of the rail vehicle. That is a plate-shaped fastening region. In combination with Steckel’s attachment part, this renders obvious the claimed plate-shaped region intended to be fastened to the rail vehicle.
CLAIM 24 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
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 fastening region as a plate because plate-type mounting bases are a routine, predictable structure for presenting aligned fastener openings and distributing load to the vehicle wall.
──────────────────────── 25. The attachment part according to claim 24, wherein the attachment part is shaped with a contour when fitted as intended to the rail vehicle, and said contour does not protrude by more than 200 mm beyond an external lateral wall of the rail vehicle. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 25 ANALYSIS
Henrici teaches that width 76 of stepped-on surface 34 preferably measures about 3 to 4 inches, which is well below 200 mm. That explicit dimensional teaching renders obvious configuring the attachment with a compact contour that does not protrude by more than 200 mm beyond the lateral wall.
CLAIM 25 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to limit lateral protrusion as a routine clearance and safety constraint for externally mounted rail-vehicle attachments, especially where Henrici expressly teaches a substantially smaller width.
──────────────────────── 26. The attachment part according to claim 14, which further comprises a rear and a front of the attachment part, said rear having said fastening region for fastening as intended to the rail vehicle, and said front has at least one said interface for fastening a step or a platform. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 26 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches a rearward fastening portion adjacent the buffer flange/buffer plate region and a forward operator portion carrying step grate 2. Thus, Steckel teaches a rear having the fastening region and a front having the interface for the step/platform.
CLAIM 26 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 14 is required because Steckel inherently provides the rear-fastening/front-interface arrangement.
──────────────────────── 27. The attachment part according to claim 26, wherein said mounting element is disposed between said rear and said front and is configured for storing the tools. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 27 ANALYSIS
Steckel provides an elongated attachment structure extending between the rear fastening region and the front step region. Peach teaches the mounting/storage element for chocks/stop blocks. Positioning Peach’s holder on the intermediate portion of Steckel’s attachment, between the rear fastening region and the front step region, would have been an obvious placement choice.
CLAIM 27 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to place the stop-block holder between the rear fastening region and the front step/interface region because that location keeps the stored stop blocks accessible to the operator while avoiding interference with the fastening structure and the standing surface.
──────────────────────── 28. A rail vehicle or locomotive for switching, the rail vehicle comprising: a rail vehicle structure of the rail vehicle; and an attachment part according to claim 14; said attachment part being releasably fastened to said rail vehicle structure for transmitting occurring forces to the rail vehicle structure. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 28 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the rail vehicle structure and the releasably fastened shunting-step attachment transmitting forces into the vehicle structure. Peach supplies the stop-block holder now required by claim 14. The combined teachings therefore render claim 28 obvious.
CLAIM 28 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to equip the Steckel switching vehicle with Peach’s stop-block holder because the resulting vehicle predictably gives the operator a single integrated external location for stepping and for accessing stored stop blocks/chocks.
──────────────────────── 29. The rail vehicle according to claim 28, which further comprises an end cab, said attachment part being fitted in a region at least one of next to or in front of said end cab. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 29 ANALYSIS
Reference 5 expressly teaches a shunting locomotive having an open platform at each end and a shelter cabin more inwardly from each end than the open platform, with steps on each side. That directly teaches an attachment/standing area next to or in front of an end cab. Applying the combined attachment of claims 14 and 28 to that known locomotive arrangement would have been obvious.
CLAIM 29 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
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 combined attachment next to or in front of the end cab on the Reference 5 locomotive because that is the known operator working area for radio-controlled shunting locomotives and is where steps, platforms, and mounted tools would predictably be most useful.
──────────────────────── 30. The rail vehicle according to claim 29, wherein said attachment part is releasably fastened in a lateral region of the rail vehicle. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 30 ANALYSIS
Peach teaches mounting the holder to the inner surface of a side wall panel of the rail vehicle. That is a lateral region of the rail vehicle. Thus, in the end-cab environment of claim 29, the attachment part is releasably fastened in a lateral region.
CLAIM 30 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use lateral mounting because lateral sidewall placement is a known and predictable location for externally accessible rail-vehicle attachments and tools, and Peach expressly uses that location for chock storage.
──────────────────────── 31. The rail vehicle according to claim 28, which further comprises a standard interface of the rail vehicle, said attachment part being fitted to said standard interface. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 31 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the standard interface through buffer flange screw connections 5 at standardized distance 14, with support saddle 4 and sleeves 6 fitted to that interface.
CLAIM 31 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 28 is required because Steckel already uses the standard interface of the rail vehicle for the attachment.
──────────────────────── 32. The rail vehicle according to claim 31, wherein: said standard interface is disposed in an end region of the rail vehicle, or said standard interface is disposed in a region of an end cab, or said standard interface is a lateral standard interface. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 32 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the standard interface at the end/buffer region of the rail vehicle. Because claim 32 is written in the alternative, meeting that first alternative is sufficient.
CLAIM 32 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 31 is required because Steckel already places the standard interface in the end region of the rail vehicle.
──────────────────────── 33. The rail vehicle according to claim 28, wherein said attachment part is screwed to the rail vehicle. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 33 ANALYSIS
Schroeder teaches external bracket attachment using bolt openings for attaching bolts, and Henrici teaches twist handle screw 26 screwed into threaded aperture 48. Peach also teaches attachment slot 221 sized to receive a fastener for attaching the mounting base to the side wall panel. The combined teachings render obvious an attachment part screwed to the rail vehicle.
CLAIM 33 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use screw-based fastening for the combined attachment because threaded fasteners are a routine, predictable way to secure removable rail-vehicle attachments and allow repeated installation and removal.
──────────────────────── 34. The rail vehicle according to claim 33, wherein said attachment part does not protrude by more than 200 mm beyond a lateral contour of the rail vehicle. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 34 ANALYSIS
Henrici teaches width 76 of stepped-on surface 34 at about 3 to 4 inches, well below 200 mm. That explicit teaching renders obvious configuring the screwed-on attachment of claim 33 to remain within the claimed protrusion limit.
CLAIM 34 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the attachment within a 200 mm protrusion limit because compact external rail-vehicle attachments were known and desirable for clearance and safety, and Henrici expressly teaches a much smaller lateral width.
──────────────────────── 35. The rail vehicle according to claim 28, wherein said attachment part is connected to at least one of a platform, a switchman’s platform, a step, a railing or a handlebar. ────────────────────────
CLAIM 35 ANALYSIS
Steckel teaches the attachment part connected to a step through step holder 1 and step grate 2 and connected to a railing/handlebar through railing 29 and holding rod 30. Because claim 35 is written in the alternative, those teachings are sufficient.
CLAIM 35 MOTIVATION / RATIONALE
No further modification beyond claim 28 is required because Steckel already discloses the attachment connected to the recited step and railing/handlebar structures.
Response to Arguments 02.06.26
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-18 and 20-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues, in substance, that the prior art does not disclose (i) “a mounting element configured for storing tools” and (ii) “an interface configured for attaching a step or a platform,” and further argues that none of the references teaches tools “in the form of a stop block or a signal.” Applicant therefore asserts claim 14 (and dependents) are patentable.
The arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
ARGUMENT: STECKEL DOES NOT DISCLOSE “A MOUNTING ELEMENT CONFIGURED FOR STORING TOOLS” OR “AN INTERFACE CONFIGURED FOR ATTACHING A STEP OR A PLATFORM.” RESPONSE: The rejection is not premised on Steckel alone disclosing “a mounting element configured for storing tools.” The updated rejection relies on Steckel in view of Cattron. As set forth in the claim 14 analysis, Steckel clearly teaches an attachment part with a step interface (step holder 1 / step grate 2) and a standardized fastening region (push-on sleeves 6 arranged for standardized buffer flange screw connections 5 at standardized distance 14) as well as releasable securement transmitting forces to the rail vehicle structure (clamping part 9 / wing screw 15 / locking pin 17; prism part 8 supported on buffer sleeve/plunger 7). Cattron teaches a mounting element (arrangement 100) that mounts and retains switching-operation equipment such as housing 104 for RCL system 108 and/or speaker 132 mounted via speaker console 180 and mounting holes 182/184. Such equipment constitutes “tools” for switching operations under a broad, ordinary meaning, and Cattron’s mounting arrangement retains/holds the tools on the rail vehicle, satisfying “configured for storing tools.”
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not address the actual combination relied upon in the updated 103 rejection and therefore does not overcome claim 14.
ARGUMENT: RCL SYSTEMS / RELATED EQUIPMENT ARE NOT “TOOLS,” AND THE PRIOR ART DOES NOT STORE “TOOLS IN THE FORM OF A STOP BLOCK OR A SIGNAL.” RESPONSE: Claim 14 does not limit “tools” to stop blocks or signals; rather, claim 14 broadly recites “tools” without restriction. Under examination, broad claim language encompasses ordinary meanings of tools/equipment used to perform the relevant operation, here switching/shunting. Further, Applicant’s own amended claim 17 expressly states that a “signal” may be a “tool” (“stop block or a signal as the tools”). Thus, the claim set itself supports that warning/signal devices fall within “tools.” Cattron explicitly discloses a signal device: speaker 132 as part of an acoustic warning system. Cattron further teaches mounting/holding the speaker 132 to the locomotive using arrangement 100 and speaker console 180 (with mounting holes 182/184 and mechanical connecting elements). Therefore, even under Applicant’s own narrower characterization (tools as including a “signal”), Cattron teaches a mounting element configured to hold a signal tool.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the prior art lacks “signal” tools is not supported in view of Cattron’s speaker 132 mounting teachings, and does not overcome claims 14 or 17-18.
ARGUMENT: NONE OF THE REFERENCES, ALONE OR IN COMBINATION, TEACH OR SUGGEST THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 14. RESPONSE: As detailed above, Steckel teaches an attachable shunting step assembly that is releasably mounted to a standard rail vehicle interface (buffer flange screw connections 5 at standardized distance 14) and transmits loads to the rail vehicle structure (support saddle 4, prism part 8 bearing on buffer sleeve/plunger 7, clamping part 9 against buffer plate inside 11). Cattron teaches mounting arrangement 100 configured to mount and retain switching-operation equipment (housing 104 for RCL system 108 and/or speaker 132) on a locomotive 120 at handrail 116. Combining Cattron’s known mounting/retention of switching tools with Steckel’s known attachable shunting step assembly yields the claimed attachment part having both a step/platform interface and a mounting element for storing tools, with predictable advantages for switching operations (operator accessibility, reduced separate handling, improved safety and efficiency).
Thus, the combination teaches/suggests each limitation of claim 14, as set forth in the updated rejection.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS 03.05.26
Applicant argues that amended claim 14 now requires “a mounting element configured for storing tools in the form of stop blocks,” and that the prior rejection relied on Cattron’s signal-based teaching rather than a stop-block teaching.
This argument is persuasive as to the prior rejection as written. Accordingly, the prior Cattron-based rejection is not maintained in that form.
However, the argument is not persuasive as to patentability because the revised rejection of claim 14 does not rely on Cattron for the stop-block limitation. Instead, Peach teaches a vehicle wheel chock hanger for an auto-rack railroad car, including a mounting base configured to be attached to the side wall panel of the railcar and a rack configured to hold multiple different chocks for storage. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, those chocks are stop blocks because they are block-like restraints used to stop or prevent wheel movement. Peach therefore teaches the amended stop-block-storage feature now recited in claim 14.
Peach teaches a railcar-mounted wheel chock hanger attached to the inner surface of a side wall panel, with a mounting base and rack configured to hold multiple different chocks for storage, and further teaches that the stored chocks are securely held during railcar movement and switching. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a wheel chock is a stop block because it is a block-like restraint used to stop or prevent wheel movement. Applicant has not pointed to any special definition or disclaimer in the claims that would exclude wheel chocks from the scope of “stop blocks.” Thus, Peach cures the exact deficiency identified by Applicant in the prior rejection.
As now understood, claim 17 no longer recites “stop block or signal” in the alternative. Instead, claim 17 depends from claim 14 and adds that the same mounting element “is also configured to hold a signal as the tools.” The revised rejection addresses that exact claim language. Peach is relied upon for the stop-block-storage requirement inherited from claim 14, and Cattron is relied upon for the added signal-holding requirement of claim 17. Cattron expressly teaches speaker 132, speaker bracket 180, and the associated hole pattern for mounting the speaker to the locomotive-mounted assembly, and further teaches that the speaker is part of an audible alert system for the locomotive. Thus, Cattron teaches a mounting arrangement configured to hold a signal.
To the extent Applicant might contend that the same “mounting element” cannot satisfy both the stop-block function and the signal-holding function, that argument would also be unpersuasive. Claim 17 does not require a unitary one-piece mounting element or that the stop blocks and the signal be held in the same exact receptacle. A single composite mounting element assembly with a common mounting base and different holding portions for stop blocks and for a signal satisfies the claim language. Modifying Peach’s railcar-mounted stop-block holder with Cattron’s known signal-holding bracket on the same overall mounting assembly would have been a predictable consolidation of switching-related accessories at the operator location.
Applicant’s statement that the dependent claims are patentable because they depend from claim 14 is not persuasive. Each dependent claim has been separately considered, and the additional limitations are met or rendered obvious for the reasons set forth above.
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 3615