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 . 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.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 9-12, the use of the term “can” is deemed indefinite because the claims should positively define what the device is comprised of rather than reciting possible functions of components. Note that claims 1 and 7 have two uses of the indefinite term “can”. For the purposes of examination, “can” will be interpreted as the ability to perform as such, without necessarily performing or being configured to perform the functional limitation that follows. See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
Claims 2-13 are additionally rejected as indefinite based on the dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 6, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gad Elkariem (US 2011/0198884 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Gad Elkariem discloses a public transport vehicle comprising at least one unit for the flexible transport of passengers and/or freight, characterized in that at least one outer side wall of the unit has multiple adjacent doors (4), that also form the outer side wall of the vehicle along the length of the vehicle (Fig. 1), where when the unit is used for freight transport all doors can open to provide a wide entry opening for loading and unloading freight (Para. [0004]) and when used for passenger transport one or more of the doors remain permanently closed and at least one door (5) can be opened (Para. [0005]).
Referring to Claim 6: Gad Elkariem discloses the public transport vehicle, characterized in that the unit is reinforced by providing a support structure (see door jamb on entrance door 5 in Fig. 1), where the support structure is located in between units or in between a unit and a front or back of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 7: Gad Elkariem discloses the public transport vehicle, characterized in that a floor of the unit is divided in checkerboard fields, where each field can comprise a piece of furniture (1) that can be stowed away either in a space (2) between the units, or against a the roof or in the floor (Fig. 1), so that a the top of the floor is free of furniture and practically flat when the furniture is stowed away (Para. [0005]).
Referring to Claim 13: Gad Elkariem discloses the public transport vehicle, characterized in that the public transport vehicle is a rail vehicle or a bus (Para. [0004]) (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gad Elkariem in view of Barry (US 4,082,042).
Referring to Claim 2: Gad Elkariem does not specifically teach that with more than two units, units for freight are in adjacent units or units for passengers are in adjacent units. However, Barry teaches an overhead container transfer system, wherein with more than two units, units for freight (16F) are in adjacent units or units for passengers (16P) are in adjacent units (Fig. 43) (Col. 16, lines 19-28) (Examiner notes that freight railcars 14F and passenger railcars 14P may also be reasonably interpreted as the claimed “units”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to use more than two units and place like units adjacent to one another, as taught by Barry, in order to transport more passengers and freight while maintaining separation therebetween for safety and efficiency purposes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 12: Gad Elkariem does not specifically teach that for transporting freight, closed containers are used that comprise a side wall that can function as a separation between units with passengers and units with freight. However, Barry teaches an overhead container transfer system, wherein closed containers (16’’’) are used that comprise a side wall that can function as a separation between units with passengers and units with freight (Fig. 40) (Col. 16, lines 6-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to use closed containers with side walls, as taught by Barry, in order to transport both passengers and freight while maintaining separation therebetween for safety and efficiency purposes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gad Elkariem in view of Ludowici (US 2,822,055).
Referring to Claim 3: Gad Elkariem does not specifically teach that the doors are wing doors. However, Ludowici teaches combination motor vehicles, wherein the doors are wing doors (27, 28) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to use wing doors, as taught by Ludowici, in order to pivot doors upwardly and out of the way during loading/unloading operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 4: Gad Elkariem does not specifically teach that both outer side walls of the unit are provided with the doors. However, Ludowici teaches combination motor vehicles, wherein both outer side walls of the unit are provided with the doors (27, 28) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to use doors on both outer side walls of the unit, as taught by Ludowici, in order to allow more convenient loading/unloading operations on both sides with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 11: Gad Elkariem does not specifically teach that a bottom part of a door can fold downwards to provide a step for easy entry / exit and for covering a gap between a loading platform and the vehicle. However, Ludowici teaches combination motor vehicles, wherein a bottom part (29) of a door (27, 28) can fold downwards to provide a step for easy entry / exit and for covering a gap between a loading platform and the vehicle (Fig. 1) (Col. 2, lines 26-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to use a door with a bottom part that can fold downwards to provide a step, as taught by Ludowici, in order to allow more convenient loading/unloading operations as passengers step in/out of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gad Elkariem in view of Lucien (US 2,425,948).
Referring to Claim 5: Gad Elkariem does not specifically teach that the unit is provided with a luggage rack that spans along a the length of the unit and that strengthens the construction of a roof of the unit at the side of the doors. However, Lucien teaches a powered vehicle of connected sections, wherein the unit is provided with a luggage rack (58) that spans along a length of the unit and that strengthens the construction of a roof (57) of the unit (Figs. 1 and 2) (Col. 4, lines 14-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to include a luggage rack spanning the length of the roof, as taught by Lucien, in order to allow more convenient storage of luggage in overhead areas with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gad Elkariem in view of Ehlers et al. (US 9,511,847).
Referring to Claim 8: Gad Elkariem further teaches that the furniture comprises chairs (1) (Para. [0005]) (Fig. 1), but does not teach tables. However, Ehlers teaches a deployable floor panel arrangement for use in vehicles, wherein tables (Fig. 1c) can be formed by the backrests (16) of chairs (14) (Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to include tables formed by the backrests of chairs, as taught by Lucien, in order to make available cabin configurations with the additional utility of a table option with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Gad Elkariem does not teach that tables can be formed by the backrests of chairs. However, Ehlers teaches a deployable floor panel arrangement for use in vehicles, wherein tables (Fig. 1c) can be formed by the backrests (16) of chairs (14) (Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to include tables formed by the backrests of chairs, as taught by Lucien, in order to make available cabin configurations with the additional utility of a table option with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Gad Elkariem does not teach that the furniture for checkerboard fields can be chosen to be a chair or table to make different configurations of furniture in the unit possible. However, Ehlers teaches a deployable floor panel arrangement for use in vehicles, wherein tables (Fig. 1c) can be formed by the backrests (16) of chairs (14) (Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gad Elkariem to include tables formed by the backrests of chairs, as taught by Lucien, in order to make available cabin configurations with the additional utility of a table option with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617