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 § 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, 18, 29, 30, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawley (US 0,889,368).
Referring to Claim 1: Hawley discloses a terminal, comprising:
a railcar transfer apparatus (2, 4), the railcar transfer apparatus configured to move a railcar at least in a direction generally normal to a length of the railcar (page 1, lines 11-17) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 18: Hawley discloses the terminal of claim 1, further comprising a railcar staging area (6) (page 1, lines 85-93) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 29: Hawley discloses the terminal of claim 1, further comprising:
a terminal building (A, B) comprising a hollow interior and a plurality of loading docks along a wall of the terminal building (page 1, lines 68-73 and 85-93) (Fig. 1);
rail track segments (1, 6), each rail track segment from the rail track segments connecting a respective dock bay to the railcar transfer apparatus (2, 4) (Fig. 1);
a first rail track (1, 5, 6) at one end of the terminal building (A, B) (Fig. 1); and
a second rail track (1, 5, 6) at an opposite end of the terminal building (A, B) (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
the railcar transfer apparatus (2, 4) being in a railcar exchange with each of the terminal building, the first rail track and the second rail track (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 30: Hawley discloses the terminal of claim 1, wherein the railcar transfer apparatus (2, 4) comprises:
two rail tracks (3) disposed, at a distance, parallel to each other, each rail track having two rails spaced at a distance from each other to align with bogey wheels of a railcar (Figs. 1 and 4);
a railcar transfer bridge comprising:
a frame (15) (Fig. 7),
a propulsion (30) designed to move the railcar transfer bridge on the two rail tracks, and
two rail track portions (10) disposed on the frame (page 2, lines 102-103) (Fig. 3); and
a self-propelled railcar mover (“locomotive”) designed to move a railcar onto and from the railcar transfer bridge (page 3, lines 5-12).
Referring to Claim 35: Hawley discloses the terminal of claim 1, wherein the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an automated transfer shuttle or bridge (4), the automated transfer shuttle or bridge comprising:
four wheeled (13) bogeys (Fig. 7) (page 2, lines 76-85);
a drive motor (30) attached to one wheeled bogey from the four wheeled bogeys (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 102-103);
a controller (26-29) (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 104-109);
a power source;
a frame supported on four wheeled bogeys (21, 23) (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 89-92); and
two rail track segments (10) disposed, at a distance from each other, on the frame (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 85-89).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 4,154,170).
Referring to Claim 1: Williams discloses a terminal, comprising:
a railcar transfer apparatus (36), the railcar transfer apparatus configured to move a railcar (52) at least in a direction generally normal to a length of the railcar (Fig. 1) (Col. 4, lines 3-11).
Referring to Claim 2: Williams discloses the terminal of claim 1, further comprising: a terminal building (10) comprising a hollow interior and a wall (14) comprising a first plurality of dock bays (18); and rail track segments (44), each rail track segment from the rail track segments connecting a respective dock bay to the railcar transfer apparatus (36) (Fig. 1) (Col. 3, lines 6-20).
Referring to Claim 18: Williams discloses the terminal of claim 1, further comprising a railcar staging area (26, 28) (Col. 3, lines 32-39) (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, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley in view of Williams.
Referring to Claim 2: Hawley does not specifically teach a terminal building comprising a hollow interior and a wall comprising a first plurality of dock bays; and rail track segments, each rail track segment from the rail track segments connecting a respective dock bay to the railcar transfer apparatus.
However, Williams teaches a rail car transporting and shipping system, further comprising a terminal building (10) comprising a hollow interior and a wall (14) comprising a first plurality of dock bays (18); and rail track segments (44), each rail track segment from the rail track segments connecting a respective dock bay to the railcar transfer apparatus (36) (Fig. 1) (Col. 3, lines 6-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to provide a terminal building with dock bays and rail track segments in connection with the railcar transfer apparatus, as taught by Williams, in order to provide weather protection for a railcar shipping floor with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 7: Hawley does not specifically teach that the terminal building comprises a railcar restraint.
However, Williams teaches a rail car transporting and shipping system, further comprising a terminal building (10) (Fig. 1) (Col. 3, lines 6-20) and a railcar constraint (46) (Fig. 5) (Col. 4, lines 12-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to provide a terminal building and a railcar constraint, as taught by Williams, in order to provide weather protection for a railcar shipping floor, and additionally, draw railcars into the building and push them out of the building with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 8: Hawley does not specifically teach a railcar restraint that comprises: a rail coupler; and a linear actuator connected to the rail coupler, the linear actuator configured to move, with a movable portion, the rail coupler in a linear direction.
However, Williams teaches a rail car transporting and shipping system, wherein the railcar restraint (46) comprises: a rail coupler (48); and a linear actuator (104) connected to the rail coupler, the linear actuator configured to move (Col. 6, lines 15-21), with a movable portion, the rail coupler in a linear direction (“draw” and “push”, Col. 4, lines 12-27) (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to provide a railcar constraint with a linear actuator, as taught by Williams, in order to draw railcars into the building fully and push them out of the building fully, ensuring the railcar does not partially overhang the dock bay (see Williams, Col. 6, lines 15-21) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 11: Hawley does not specifically teach a rail coupler that comprises: a coupler shank; a coupler head having a knuckle side and a guard arm side; a knuckle pin mounted within the coupler head; and a coupler knuckle which is mounted for independent rotation on a knuckle pin.
However, Williams teaches a rail car transporting and shipping system, wherein the rail coupler comprises a conventional railroad type knuckle coupler having conventional knuckle coupler components (Col. 4, lines 12-27) (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to provide a railcar constraint with a linear actuator, as taught by Williams, in order to draw railcars into the building and push them out of the building using conventional knuckle coupler components, which conveniently couple with conventional railcar couplers, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley in view of Williams and Graham (US 3,442,223).
Referring to Claim 15: Hawley does not specifically teach a rail track segment inclined downwardly from the railcar transfer apparatus toward the terminal building.
However, Graham teaches a method and apparatus for loading or unloading vehicle carrying railway cars, comprising a rail track segment inclined downwardly (50) from the railcar transfer apparatus (10) toward the terminal building (52) (Col. 4, lines 5-13) (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to provide a downward incline away from the transfer apparatus toward the terminal building, as taught by Graham, in order to allow unloaded railcars to pass down the incline to the loading area under the force of gravity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley in view of Chase (US 2012/00312295 A1).
Referring to Claim 36: Hawley does not specifically teach that the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an automated guided vehicle.
However, Chase teaches a train yard classification system, wherein the railcar transfer apparatus (22) (Para. [0076]) comprises an automated guided vehicle (Para. [0073]) (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to automate the guided vehicle, as taught by Chase, in order to provide automated control of railcar transfer processes with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley.
Referring to Claim 44: Hawley further teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the railcar transfer apparatus comprises:
two wheeled (13) bogeys disposed at a distance from each other (Figs. 3, 4, and 7);
a platform (21, 23) attached to the two wheeled bogeys (Fig. 3); and
a rail track portion (10) disposed on the platform to receive wheels of the railcar (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 85-89);
the railcar transfer apparatus remotely operable to align the rail track portion (10) with a rail track (1, 6) in a railcar staging (page 2, lines 14-37).
As noted by strikethrough above, Hawley fails to teach two drive motors, each drive motor disposed on one wheeled bogey from the two wheeled bogeys. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hawley to provide a duplicate motor for each wheeled bogie, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley in view of Chase and Blouin et al. (US 2019/0375257 A1).
Referring to Claim 48: Hawley does not specifically teach that the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an automated transfer shuttle and an automated railcar mover.
However, Chase teaches a train yard classification system, wherein the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an automated transfer shuttle (22) (Para. [0073]) and an automated railcar mover (“indexer”) [0077]) (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to automate the transfer shuttle, as taught by Chase, in order to provide automated control of railcar transfer processes with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Further, Blouin teaches a traction system for railcar movers, wherein railcar mover functions are controlled automatically via a processor (62) (Para. [0029] and [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Hawley to provide an automated railcar mover, as taught by Blouin, in order to provide automated control of railcar transfer processes with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Referring to Claim 49: Hawley further teaches the terminal of claim 48, wherein the automated transfer shuttle comprises:
two wheeled (13) bogeys disposed at a distance from each other (Figs. 3, 4, and 7);
a controller (26-29) (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 104-109);
a power source;
a platform (21, 23) attached to the two wheeled bogeys (Fig. 3); and
two rail track portions (10) disposed on the platform at a distance from each other to receive wheels of the railcar (Fig. 3) (page 2, lines 85-89).
As noted by strikethrough above, Hawley fails to teach two drive motors, each drive motor disposed on one wheeled bogey from the two wheeled bogeys. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hawley to provide a duplicate motor for each wheeled bogie, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Referring to Claim 50: Hawley does not specifically teach an automated railcar mover.
However, Blouin teaches a traction system for railcar movers, wherein the automated railcar mover (10) comprises:
two wheel (36) sets disposed at a distance from each other (Fig. 1)
a drive motor (24) coupled to one wheel set from the two wheel sets (Para. [0022]);
a controller (22) (Para. [0021]);
a power source (Para. [0023]);
a frame (14) supported on the two wheel sets (Fig. 1); and
a rail coupler (34) with a coupler knuckle and a coupler shank, the coupler knuckle extending outwardly from the frame (Para. [0022]) (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 Hawley to provide an automated railcar mover, as taught by Blouin, in order to provide automated control of railcar transfer processes with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Referring to Claim 51: Hawley does not specifically teach an automated railcar mover.
However, Blouin teaches a traction system for railcar movers, wherein the automated railcar mover (10) comprises:
two wheel (36) sets disposed at a distance from each other (Fig. 1)
a drive motor (24) coupled to one wheel set from the two wheel sets (Para. [0022]);
a power source (Para. [0023]);
a frame (14) supported on the two wheel sets (Fig. 1); and
a driver cab (20) mounted on the frame, the driver cab configured with controls (22) to control, by a driver, an operation of the automated railcar mover (Para. [0021]); and
a rail coupler (34) with a coupler knuckle and a coupler shank, the coupler knuckle extending outwardly from the frame (Para. [0022]) (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 Hawley to provide an automated railcar mover with a driver cab, as taught by Blouin, in order to provide automated control of railcar transfer processes with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 32, 33, 34 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach “a draft gear mounted mediate the rail coupler and the linear actuator.” While it is well-known in the art to use draft gears in combination with conventional railcar couplers to absorb energy (see, e.g., Hathaway et al. US 2009/0238669 A1, Para. [0081], last sentence), it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Hawley in view of Williams and further modify in view of another reference, such as Hathaway, because this would require improperly modifying a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach “a cut lever apparatus operable to remotely unlock the coupler knuckle.” While it is well-known in the art to use cut levers to uncouple railcars (see, e.g., Mian et al. US 2014/0371911, Para. [0004], second sentence), it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Hawley in view of Williams and further modify in view of another reference, such as Mian, because this would require improperly modifying a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach “a cut lever apparatus operable to remotely unlock the coupler knuckle.” While it is well-known in the art to use cut levers to uncouple railcars (see, e.g., Mian et al. US 2014/0371911, Para. [0004], second sentence), it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Hawley in view of Williams and further modify in view of another reference, such as Mian, because this would require improperly modifying a modifying reference.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art fails to teach that “the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an oval-shaped rail track.” While it is well-known in the art to use circular railcar sorting mechanisms (see, e.g., DE 19740557, Figs. 1-4), it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Hawley in view of DE 19740557 to arrive at this claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art fails to teach that “the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an automated rotating transfer arm.” While it is well-known in the art to use circular railcar sorting mechanisms with a rotating transfer arm (see, e.g., DE 19740557, Figs. 1-4), it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Hawley in view of DE 19740557 to arrive at this claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art fails to teach that “the railcar transfer apparatus comprises an automated rotating transfer carousel.” While it is well-known in the art to use circular railcar sorting mechanisms (see, e.g., DE 19740557, Figs. 1-4), it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Hawley in view of DE 19740557 to arrive at this claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because they relate to railcar transfer apparatus: Beule (US 5,658,848) teaches a more highly automated railcar mover than Blouin cited above.
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 3615A