DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Claims 1-13 are maintained in rejection despite the Applicant arguments and amendments filed 05/22/2026. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. This Office action is final.
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 multiple adjacent doors (4) form the at least one outer side wall of the vehicle along the length of the vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein all doors (4) fit together without the use of permanently fixed supporting pillars between the doors and wherein the unit is suitable for freight transport (Para. [0004]) when all doors are open to create a wide opening for loading and unloading freight (Fig. 1) (Para. [0005]) and wherein the unit is suitable for passenger transport with one or more of the doors (4) permanently closed and with at least one door open (Para. [0004]).
Examiner notes that only the elevating doors 4 of Gad Elkariem are being interpreted as the claimed “multiple adjacent doors”. Further, the cabin area of Gad Elkariem is still “suitable for passenger transport” when one of the doors 4 is closed.
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 comprises 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 functions 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 folds 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 are 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 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Gad Elkariem does not teach that all doors fit together without supporting pillars to create a wide opening suitable for passenger transport with one door permanently closed, as recited in amended claim 1, because Gad Elkariem relies on unlabeled pillars, restricts vertical access for freight, and doors 4 cannot be used for passenger entry due to the limited access provided. Examiner responds that while there appears to be an unlabeled pillar between ordinary entrance door 5 and elevating doors 4 (see annotated Fig. 1 below), there are no pillars depicted between the elevating doors 4 (also see annotated Fig. 1 below). As noted by Applicant in the arguments, “door 5 of Gad Elkariem does not form part of the doors as defined in amended Claim 1” (Arguments, page 8), and thus, there are no permanently fixed supporting pillars between the doors. Further, while elevating doors 4 might restrict vertical access to freight to some degree, the amended claim language only requires “a wide opening for loading and unloading freight,” which is satisfied by the opening of elevating doors 4. Finally, amended claim 1 recites “the unit is suitable for passenger transport” which is satisfied by Gad Elkariem, which is designed for passengers and goods (Para. [0002]). I.e., Applicant is making arguments more specific than what is recited in amended claim 1. Examiner invites applicant to narrow the claim language, e.g., “the multiple adjacent doors are configured for passengers to easily access the vehicle interior through a door opening created by vertically opening one of said multiple adjacent doors, said door opening having a clearance height of at least two meters.”
PNG
media_image1.png
628
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Barry is fundamentally unsuitable for combined freight and passenger transport due to long loading times, and thus, there is no motivation to combine. Examiner responds that Barry teaches in the abstract, “This invention is shown applied in both passenger and freight transfer systems” (abstract). Further, the claims recite no time requirements for loading, only broadly claiming that the “unit is suitable” for freight and passenger transport. Thus, the stated motivation is sufficient.
Applicant argues that Ludowici is limited to the transport of passengers and is not configured for the flexible transport of both passengers and freight, and thus, there is no motivation to combine. Examiner responds that Ludowici is not being used to teach freight transport. Ludowici’s teachings regarding wing doors (claim 3), side walls with doors (claim 4), and folding steps (claim 11) are still relevant to the primary reference Gad Elkariem. Applicant’s argument amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the references, and it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Applicant argues that Lucien’s luggage rack merely serves a storage function and does not strengthen the construction of the roof, as recited in claim 5. Examiner responds that while storage of goods may be the intended primary purpose of Lucien’s luggage rack area 58, the internal structure of that rack would still strengthen the roof to some minimal degree by adding internal bracing structure (see Lucien, Fig. 2).
Applicant argues that Ehlers folding seat system is designed for a conventional interior seating flexibility and has no consideration for large structural openings, and thus, there is no motivation to combine. Examiner responds that the folding seat system of Ehlers is applicable to the passenger seating system of Gad Elkariem even if Ehlers does not contemplate large openings for freight. Applicant’s argument amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the references, and it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights