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 07/05/2023 and 05/29/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims require “first and second connection pipe assemblies” that “include first and second pipes” (claims 4-7 and 11-14), with the “pipes” formed from advanced high strength steel or ultra high strength steel (claims 4-7 and 11-14). However, the specification describes each “connection pipe assembly” (450, 460) as including a “vertically extending lock rod” (451, 461), cams (452/454; 462/464), and brackets (456a-c; 466a-c). See, e.g., [0022]-[0023]. The disclosure does not describe or identify “pipes” as components of the connection pipe assemblies, does not describe any hollow tubular “pipe” structure, and does not clearly equate the disclosed “lock rods” (or any other identified members) to the claimed “pipes.” See [0020]-[0023].
Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession, as of the filing date, of a railroad car door having connection pipe assemblies that include “first and second pipes” as claimed.
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 4-8 and 11-14 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.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
The claims recite that the “connection pipe assemblies” include “first and second pipes” (claims 4-7 and 11-14). The specification’s description of “connection pipe assemblies” identifies lock rods, cams, and brackets, but does not describe “pipes” or provide objective boundaries for what constitutes the claimed “pipes” within those assemblies. See [0022]-[0023]. As a result, it is unclear whether the “pipes” are intended to correspond to the disclosed “lock rods,” to some other undisclosed tubular members, or to another structure entirely. This ambiguity renders the scope of claims 4-7 and 11-14 uncertain.
Claim 8 recites that the door frame assembly and panels are “formed from ultra high strength steel,” and claim 11 likewise recites pipes “formed from ultra high strength steel,” without reciting the objective yield/tensile thresholds that appear in dependent claims 9 and 12. The specification contains inconsistent statements regarding the meaning/threshold of “ultra high strength steel.” For example, the specification states that what is “sometimes referred to as Ultra High Strength Steel (“UHSS”) has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher” ([0029]), but later states “Grade 140 UHSS” as “having a yield strength of 140 ksi (550 MPa) or higher” ([0036]). Because claims 8 and 11 rely on the label “ultra high strength steel” without an express numeric boundary, and the specification provides conflicting standards/units for that label, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably certain as to the scope of “ultra high strength steel” in claims 8 and 11. See Nautilus; MPEP § 2173.05(b) (terms of degree must be supported by objective boundaries).
List of References
Reference 1 (Primary): US4068410A, Marulic et al., “Railway car door locking mechanism,” published Jan. 17, 1978.
Reference 2: US8910999B2, “Lightweight steel door for vehicle and method for manufacturing the same,” issued Dec. 30, 2014.
Reference 3: US20200217109A1, “Auto-rack railroad car door locking assembly splice,” published Jul. 9, 2020.
Reference 4: US20170008539A1, “Slack adjuster for railcar brake,” published Jan. 12, 2017.
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.
CLAIMS 1-3 REJECTION (35 U.S.C. 103) OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
A railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from advanced high strength steel, a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from advanced high strength steel, and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, the locking assembly formed from a high strength steel.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1
A railroad car comprising: Reference 1 discloses a railway box car 10 (i.e., a railroad car). Reference 1 further discloses structural portions of the car body including side walls 11, a lower wall portion 16, a threshold member 17, and a floor 18 (structural members forming the supporting car body structure/frame for the side wall and door opening).
a frame; Reference 1 discloses the box car 10 including structural members (e.g., lower wall portion 16, threshold member 17, floor 18) that support the side wall 11 and door opening 12, which collectively correspond to a car body/frame structure supporting the side wall and door system.
a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, Reference 1 discloses side walls 11 having a door opening 12. Reference 1 discloses a double-door arrangement closing the side opening, including a large first sliding/plug door 21 and a smaller second (auxiliary) door 45, each laterally movable relative to the door opening 12 on track 19. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a first side wall 11 including a door assembly (doors 21 and 45) on the side wall.
at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly Reference 1 discloses, for door 21, frame members including upper frame member 23, lower frame member 24, upright beams 25, and side frame members 26 and 27 supporting door sheathing 22. Reference 1 also discloses, for door 45, side frame members 47 and 48 connected to upper frame members 52 and lower frame members 53, and a vertical support beam 54 supporting door sheathing 46. These assemblies of frame members constitute door frame assemblies for at least one of the doors (and, in fact, both doors).
formed from advanced high strength steel, Reference 1 does not expressly state the door frame material as “advanced high strength steel.” Reference 2, however, expressly teaches manufacturing a door assembly 10 from Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) and teaches forming a perimeter frame portion 28 (i.e., a door frame structure) from advanced high strength steel materials, including U-shaped steel sheets 52F, 52R of a first advanced high strength steel material and top/bottom steel sheets 54T, 54B of a second advanced high-strength steel material. Reference 2 therefore teaches door frame assemblies formed from AHSS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the door frame members of Reference 1 (e.g., members 23, 24, 26, 27 for door 21 and/or members 47, 48, 52, 53 for door 45) from advanced high strength steel as taught by Reference 2, because Reference 2 teaches using AHSS in door frame structures to improve strength/stiffness and reduce deformation while maintaining manufacturability in door structures, and substituting a known higher-strength steel for a known door frame steel is a predictable, result-effective design choice. KSR v. Teleflex supports combining known elements (door frame structures) with known materials (AHSS) according to known techniques to obtain predictable results (greater resistance to yielding/deformation).
a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from advanced high strength steel, Reference 1 discloses door sheathing 22 connected to the door frame members (23, 24, 25, 26, 27) and door sheathing 46 connected to door frame members (47, 48, 52, 53, 54). Door sheathing is a panel structure attached to a frame. Reference 2 further teaches a plurality of panels in a door assembly, including an inner panel 12 and an outer panel 14, with the outer panel 14 adhesively bonded to the inner panel 12 (and thus connected to the door frame portion 28) and being formed of steel sheet, specifically a high-strength dual-phase steel (FF280DP) outer panel 14. Reference 2 also teaches the inner panel 12/frame portion 28 being manufactured from AHSS. Thus, Reference 2 teaches multiple door panels connected to a door frame and formed from high strength/AHSS materials.
It would have been obvious to implement the door sheathing/panels of Reference 1 (e.g., sheathing 22 and/or 46, and any inner/outer sheathing layers) as a plurality of AHSS panels connected to the door frame assembly, as taught by Reference 2 (inner panel 12 and outer panel 14 connected about a frame portion 28), because Reference 2 teaches that plural panel constructions and high-strength steel panels increase stiffness/strength and resistance to deformation in door applications; applying that known door panel construction and known material choice to the railcar door sheathing of Reference 1 would have been a predictable improvement in durability in the same general door-structure context.
and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, Reference 1 discloses door 45 including a locking mechanism 60 mounted on the door and connected via bracket 61 to the door structure (with bracket 61 connected to flange 49 of frame member 48). Locking mechanism 60 includes bell crank lever 63 with handle portion 64, arm 65, and an actuating rocking bar/link 69 that drives a vertically reciprocable locking bar 82 housed within the hollow side frame member 48, which engages keeper 90 on the car structure. This is a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly (frame member 48 and associated members). Reference 1 also discloses door 21 having a door actuating mechanism 37 including handle member 38 and linkage 39 that actuates locking bolts 41, 42 engaging the door frame. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly.
the locking assembly formed from a high strength steel. Reference 1 does not expressly quantify the locking assembly material strength. Reference 4 teaches forming railcar mechanical components from steel materials having tensile strengths and yield strengths within ranges consistent with “high strength steel,” including (by example) tube 112 formed of steel having tensile strength at least about 70-80 ksi and yield strength at least about 60-70 ksi, and first bearing collar 140 formed of steel having tensile strength at least about 75-85 ksi and yield strength at least about 60-70 ksi. Such yield/tensile values fall within the claimed “high strength steel” property band later recited in dependent claim 3 (yield 30-80 ksi; tensile 40-100 ksi).
It would have been obvious to form the locking assembly components of Reference 1 (e.g., handle 64, lever 63, link 69, locking bar 82, associated brackets 61, 66, 73) from a high strength steel as exemplified by Reference 4’s steel selections for railcar mechanical load-bearing components (e.g., tube 112, collar 140), because (i) both are railcar service mechanical components subject to repetitive operational loads and impact/force transmission, (ii) selecting a steel strength level adequate to resist bending/yielding is a routine engineering choice, and (iii) Reference 4 demonstrates the known use of steels in the claimed strength ranges in railcar hardware to withstand high forces.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 1 (REFERENCE 1 + REFERENCE 2 + REFERENCE 4)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute advanced high strength steel for the door frame and door panel/sheathing members of Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 because Reference 2 teaches AHSS door structures to improve stiffness and resistance to deformation while enabling lightweight designs and maintaining manufacturability, and railcar doors similarly benefit from increased resistance to deformation/warpage and improved durability. Such substitution is a predictable use of a known material in a known door structure for its known advantage (KSR). Further, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select high strength steels for the locking assembly components of Reference 1 in view of Reference 4 because Reference 4 evidences that railcar mechanical components are formed from steels having yield/tensile strengths within the claimed range to withstand large axial/operational forces, and the locking assembly components of Reference 1 are likewise load-bearing and would predictably benefit from such material selection.
The railroad car of claim 1, wherein the advanced high strength steel has a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 90 ksi (620 MPa) or higher.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 2
Claim 2 includes the limitations of claim 1, addressed above.
wherein the advanced high strength steel has a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 90 ksi (620 MPa) or higher. Reference 2 teaches use of high-strength steel in door structural components and explicitly provides an example high-strength steel (USIBOR 1500P) used for door components with a yield strength of about 1100 MPa and an ultimate strength of about 1500 MPa. These values exceed the claimed minimum yield strength of 550 MPa (80 ksi) and tensile strength of 620 MPa (90 ksi).
Therefore, when Reference 1’s door frame assembly and panels are formed from the advanced high strength steel taught by Reference 2 (as explained in claim 1), the resulting structure inherently satisfies the claimed minimum yield and tensile strengths.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 2
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select an AHSS meeting or exceeding minimum yield/tensile values (e.g., as exemplified by Reference 2’s USIBOR 1500P properties) because steel strength properties are result-effective variables directly tied to resisting permanent deformation and increasing structural stiffness/impact resistance in door applications; selecting a steel grade meeting a target yield/tensile threshold is a routine optimization/design choice.
The railroad car of claim 2, wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa).
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 3
Claim 3 includes the limitations of claims 1-2, addressed above.
wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa). Reference 4 teaches railcar mechanical components formed of steel materials having tensile strength and yield strength values within these claimed ranges, including tube 112 formed of steel having tensile strength at least about 70-80 ksi and yield strength at least about 60-70 ksi, and first bearing collar 140 formed of steel having tensile strength at least about 75-85 ksi and yield strength at least about 60-70 ksi. Such yield/tensile values fall within the claimed 30-80 ksi yield range and 40-100 ksi tensile range.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form the locking assembly of claim 1 (locking mechanism 60 and/or 37 of Reference 1) from a high strength steel having the claimed yield/tensile ranges, as evidenced by Reference 4’s disclosed railcar steel selections.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 3
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a steel for the locking assembly within the claimed yield/tensile band because those properties provide sufficient resistance to bending/yielding for levers, bars, and brackets while preserving manufacturability (forming/welding) and cost, and Reference 4 demonstrates such property ranges being used for railcar load-bearing/mechanical components intended to withstand significant service forces. Selecting an appropriate strength band for mechanical parts is a routine design optimization of a result-effective variable.
CLAIMS 4-7 REJECTION (35 U.S.C. 103) OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The railroad car of claim 1, which includes first and second connection pipe assemblies connected to the door frame assembly, wherein the first and second connection pipe assemblies include first and second pipes formed from advanced high strength steel.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 4
Claim 4 includes the limitations of claim 1, addressed above.
which includes first and second connection pipe assemblies connected to the door frame assembly, wherein the first and second connection pipe assemblies include first and second pipes Reference 3 discloses known auto-rack car 10 including door rod locking assemblies 70a and 70b having lock rods 72a and 72b, respectively. Reference 3 further describes these lock rods as being made of steel tubing (i.e., pipes) and associated with door locking/closing via interaction with upper cam structures 76a/76b and lower cam structures (e.g., 80a) and tongue receivers (e.g., 81a, 81b, 82a) secured at the top/bottom of the door frame. Thus, Reference 3 teaches first and second “connection pipe assemblies” (door rod locking assemblies 70a, 70b) connected to a door frame, each including a respective pipe/rod (lock rods 72a, 72b).
It would have been obvious to include first and second connection pipe assemblies (e.g., dual lock rod/pipe assemblies like 70a/70b with lock rods 72a/72b) on at least one door of Reference 1 (e.g., door 21 and/or 45) because Reference 1 already teaches door locking mechanisms (mechanism 60 with locking bar 82; mechanism 37 with locking bolts 41/42), and Reference 3 teaches a known, rail-vehicle door locking approach using two lock rods (pipes) to actuate cams and engage receivers on the door frame to secure the door; implementing dual rod/pipe locking on a large side door system would have been a predictable alternative locking arrangement to improve secure closure and distribute loads at multiple vertical points.
formed from advanced high strength steel Reference 3 describes lock rods (e.g., 72a, 72b) as steel tubing but does not specify AHSS. Reference 2 teaches forming door structural components from AHSS materials (e.g., advanced high strength steel sheets 52F/52R/54T/54B and high-strength steel outer panel 14), including using higher strength materials in door structures to improve performance.
It would have been obvious to form the lock rods/pipes (e.g., 72a, 72b) of the connection pipe assemblies in AHSS (as claimed) in view of Reference 2 because lock rods/pipes are door structural members subject to impact and bending; using AHSS would predictably increase yield resistance and reduce permanent deformation, consistent with Reference 2’s teaching of higher-strength steels in door components to improve resistance to intrusion/deformation.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 4
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt dual lock-rod (pipe) connection assemblies like Reference 3’s door rod locking assemblies 70a/70b (lock rods 72a/72b) in the side door context of Reference 1 to provide robust door securing and force distribution along the door edge (multiple engagement points via cams/receivers), which is a known objective in railcar door locking. A person of ordinary skill would further have been motivated to use AHSS for those pipe/rod components in view of Reference 2 to reduce bending/yielding and improve durability without changing the fundamental door/lock function, representing a predictable materials substitution (KSR).
The railroad car of claim 4, wherein the advanced high strength steel has a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 90 ksi (620 MPa) or higher.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 5
Claim 5 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 4, addressed above.
wherein the advanced high strength steel has a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 90 ksi (620 MPa) or higher. As addressed for claim 2, Reference 2 teaches an example high-strength steel used in door components (USIBOR 1500P) having yield strength about 1100 MPa and ultimate strength about 1500 MPa, exceeding the claimed minima. Therefore, using Reference 2’s taught AHSS for the pipes/lock rods (e.g., 72a/72b) yields pipes meeting the claimed yield/tensile thresholds.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 5
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select an AHSS meeting specified minimum yield/tensile values for lock rods/pipes because these values directly correlate with resisting permanent set from impacts and operational forces; selecting a steel grade meeting a target strength threshold is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Reference 2 provides exemplary high-strength door steels exceeding these thresholds, making the selection predictable.
The railroad car of claim 5, wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa).
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 6
Claim 6 includes the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5, addressed above.
wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa). As addressed for claim 3, Reference 4 discloses steel selections for railcar mechanical components (e.g., tube 112, collar 140) having yield/tensile values (e.g., yield 60-70 ksi; tensile 70-85 ksi) within the claimed high strength steel ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the locking assembly components (e.g., mechanism 60 or 37 in Reference 1; and/or handle/cam-related parts in Reference 3’s door rod locking systems) from such a high strength steel meeting the claimed ranges.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 6
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a locking-assembly steel within the claimed yield/tensile band to balance strength, durability, and manufacturability for levers, cams, rods, and brackets, with Reference 4 evidencing that such strength levels are used in railcar mechanical assemblies to withstand large service forces. This is routine optimization/material selection for known mechanical loading conditions.
A railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from advanced high strength steel, a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from advanced high strength steel, first and second connection pipe assemblies including first and second pipes formed from advanced high strength steel, and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, wherein the advanced high strength steel has a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 90 ksi (620 MPa) or higher.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 7
a railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, Reference 1 teaches box car 10 with side wall 11 including door opening 12 and first and second doors 21 and 45 movable on track 19, supported by car structural members including lower wall portion 16, threshold 17, and floor 18.
at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from advanced high strength steel, Reference 1 teaches door frame structures (door 21: frame members 23, 24, 26, 27 and beams 25; door 45: side frame members 47, 48, upper/lower frame members 52, 53, support beam 54). Reference 2 teaches door frame structures (frame portion 28) manufactured from AHSS using advanced high strength steel sheets 52F/52R/54T/54B. It would have been obvious to form Reference 1’s door frame structures from AHSS as taught by Reference 2 for improved stiffness and deformation resistance.
a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from advanced high strength steel, Reference 1 teaches door sheathing panels 22 and/or 46 connected to the door frame members. Reference 2 teaches multiple door panels (inner panel 12 and outer panel 14) connected about a door frame portion 28, including outer panel 14 formed from high-strength steel sheet (FF280DP) and the door assembly being manufactured from AHSS. It would have been obvious to implement the door sheathing/panel arrangement of Reference 1 as a plurality of AHSS panels connected to the frame, consistent with Reference 2’s teachings, to improve stiffness and reduce deformation.
first and second connection pipe assemblies including first and second pipes formed from advanced high strength steel, Reference 3 teaches first and second door rod locking assemblies 70a and 70b including lock rods 72a and 72b (steel tubing/pipes). It would have been obvious to incorporate such dual lock-rod/pipe assemblies into the door of Reference 1 and to form those rods/pipes from AHSS in view of Reference 2 for improved resistance to bending and yielding in a door-structure environment.
and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, Reference 1 teaches locking mechanism 60 mounted to the door 45 via bracket 61 connected to door frame member 48 and including handle portion 64 and link 69 operating locking bar 82; Reference 1 also teaches mechanism 37 with handle 38 actuating locking bolts 41/42. These are locking assemblies connected to door frame structures.
wherein the advanced high strength steel has a yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 90 ksi (620 MPa) or higher. Reference 2 teaches a high-strength door steel example (USIBOR 1500P) having yield strength about 1100 MPa (~159.5 ksi) and ultimate strength about 1500 MPa (~217.6 ksi), exceeding the claimed minima. Therefore, selecting such AHSS for the door frame/panels and the pipe assemblies meets the strength thresholds.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 7
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to (i) use Reference 2’s AHSS door materials and constructions in the railcar sliding/plug double-door system of Reference 1 to improve resistance to deformation and increase structural stiffness in a predictable way, and (ii) incorporate Reference 3’s dual lock-rod/pipe assemblies to provide robust, distributed locking/closing forces at multiple vertical points. The combined modifications represent the predictable application of known door-material improvements and known rail door locking mechanisms to a similar railcar door system (KSR), with strength-property selection being routine optimization of result-effective variables.
CLAIMS 8-10 REJECTION (35 U.S.C. 103) OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
A railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from ultra high strength steel, a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from ultra high strength steel, and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, the locking assembly formed from a high strength steel.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 8
a railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, Reference 1 teaches box car 10 with side wall 11 including door opening 12 and first and second doors 21 and 45, supported by car structural members (16, 17, 18).
at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from ultra high strength steel, Reference 1 teaches door frame structures (23, 24, 25, 26, 27 for door 21; and 47, 48, 52, 53, 54 for door 45) but does not specify UHSS. Reference 2 teaches use of very high strength steels in door components, including USIBOR 1500P with yield strength about 1100 MPa and ultimate strength about 1500 MPa used for door structural members (e.g., beams 38/40 and related door structural elements), which are strengths characteristic of ultra-high-strength door steels. It would have been obvious to form Reference 1’s door frame members from such ultra-high-strength steel as taught by Reference 2 to further increase deformation resistance and stiffness.
a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from ultra high strength steel, Reference 1 teaches door sheathing (22, 46) connected to door frame members. Reference 2 teaches a plurality of door panels (inner panel 12 and outer panel 14) connected about the door frame portion 28, and teaches using high-strength steel sheets and hot-stamped high strength steel (e.g., USIBOR 1500P) in door structures. It would have been obvious to form the door panels/sheathing of Reference 1 from ultra-high-strength steel consistent with Reference 2’s teaching of very high-strength steels in door structures where high deformation resistance is desired.
and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, Reference 1 teaches locking mechanism 60 connected to door frame member 48 via bracket 61 and including handle 64 and link 69 operating locking bar 82, and/or door 21 mechanism 37 (handle 38, locking bolts 41/42).
the locking assembly formed from a high strength steel. Reference 4 teaches use of steel materials having yield/tensile values within the claimed high strength band in railcar mechanical components (e.g., tube 112; collar 140). It would have been obvious to form the locking assembly components of Reference 1 from such high strength steel.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 8
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply Reference 2’s ultra-high-strength door steel teachings (e.g., hot-stamped very high strength steels such as USIBOR 1500P) to the railcar door frame/panel structures of Reference 1 to improve resistance to permanent deformation and maintain door operability after impacts, with predictable results (KSR). A person of ordinary skill would likewise have been motivated to use high strength steel for the locking assembly components based on Reference 4’s demonstrated railcar use of such steels to withstand high service forces.
The railroad car of claim 8, wherein the ultra high strength steel has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 170 ksi (1170 MPa) or higher.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9
Claim 9 includes the limitations of claim 8, addressed above.
wherein the ultra high strength steel has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 170 ksi (1170 MPa) or higher. Reference 2 teaches use of a high-strength steel example (USIBOR 1500P) having yield strength about 1100 MPa (approximately 159.5 ksi) and ultimate strength about 1500 MPa (approximately 217.6 ksi), which exceed the claimed minima of 965 MPa (140 ksi) yield and 1170 MPa (170 ksi) tensile. Thus, selecting Reference 2’s taught steel for the door frame and panels satisfies the claimed strength thresholds.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 9
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select an ultra-high-strength steel meeting specific minimum yield/tensile values because these parameters are directly tied to preventing permanent deformation and maintaining structural integrity in door components; selection of steel grade to satisfy such thresholds is routine optimization of a result-effective variable and Reference 2 provides an explicit example exceeding those thresholds.
The railroad car of claim 9, wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa).
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10
Claim 10 includes the limitations of claims 8-9, addressed above.
wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa). As addressed for claim 3, Reference 4 teaches railcar mechanical components formed from steel having yield 60-70 ksi and tensile 70-85 ksi (e.g., tube 112, collar 140), which fall within the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to form the locking assembly components of Reference 1 from such a steel meeting the claimed ranges.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 10
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to choose a high strength steel for the locking assembly within the claimed property band to provide adequate strength while preserving manufacturability and cost, as evidenced by Reference 4’s use of such steels in railcar mechanical components designed to withstand significant service forces.
CLAIMS 11-14 REJECTION (35 U.S.C. 103) OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The railroad car of claim 8, which includes first and second connection pipe assemblies connected to the door frame assembly, wherein the first and second connection pipe assemblies include first and second pipes formed from ultra high strength steel.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11
Claim 11 includes the limitations of claim 8, addressed above.
which includes first and second connection pipe assemblies connected to the door frame assembly, wherein the first and second connection pipe assemblies include first and second pipes Reference 3 teaches known auto-rack car 10 having door rod locking assemblies 70a, 70b with lock rods 72a, 72b (steel tubing/pipes) interacting with door frame receivers (e.g., 81a, 81b, 82a) and cams (e.g., 76a, 80a), thus teaching two pipe/rod locking assemblies associated with a door frame.
It would have been obvious to include two such pipe/rod assemblies in the door system of Reference 1 for robust closure/locking as explained for claim 4.
formed from ultra high strength steel. Reference 2 teaches ultra-high-strength door steels (e.g., USIBOR 1500P with yield about 1100 MPa and ultimate about 1500 MPa) used in door structural components. It would have been obvious to form the lock rods/pipes (72a, 72b) from such UHSS to further increase bending/yield resistance of these elongated rod/pipe members subject to impacts and operational forces.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 11
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ dual lock-rod/pipe assemblies (Reference 3) in a railcar door system (Reference 1) to distribute closure/locking forces and improve securement along the door edge, and to select UHSS for these rods/pipes in view of Reference 2 to reduce permanent deformation and improve durability, representing predictable substitution of a known higher-strength steel for a known steel rod/pipe in a door mechanism (KSR).
The railroad car of claim 11, wherein the ultra high strength steel has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 170 ksi (1170 MPa) or higher.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12
Claim 12 includes the limitations of claims 8 and 11, addressed above.
wherein the ultra high strength steel has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 170 ksi (1170 MPa) or higher. Reference 2 teaches USIBOR 1500P having yield about 1100 MPa (~159.5 ksi) and ultimate about 1500 MPa (~217.6 ksi), exceeding the claimed minima. Therefore, forming the pipes/lock rods (e.g., 72a, 72b) from Reference 2’s taught steel satisfies the strength thresholds.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 12
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to choose a UHSS meeting specified minimum yield/tensile values for lock rods/pipes because these properties directly determine resistance to bending and permanent set in long rod members; selecting a grade to meet a specified minimum is routine optimization, and Reference 2 provides a clear example exceeding those thresholds.
The railroad car of claim 12, wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa).
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13
Claim 13 includes the limitations of claims 8, 11, and 12, addressed above.
wherein the high strength steel has a yield strength between 30-80 ksi (210-550 MPa) and a tensile strength between 40-100 ksi (270 to 700 MPa). Reference 4 teaches steel selections for railcar mechanical components (e.g., tube 112, collar 140) having yield/tensile values within these ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the locking assembly components of Reference 1 (and/or associated locking components used with Reference 3-style lock rods) from such high strength steel meeting the claimed band.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 13
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a locking-assembly steel in the claimed yield/tensile band because such a band provides adequate strength for durable operation while remaining manufacturable and cost-effective; Reference 4 evidences that such steels are used in railcar service mechanical components to withstand significant forces. This is routine optimization/material selection.
A railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from ultra high strength steel, a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from ultra high strength steel, first and second connection pipe assemblies including first and second pipes formed from ultra high strength steel, and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, wherein the ultra high strength steel has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 170 ksi (1170 MPa) or higher.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14
a railroad car comprising: a frame; and a first side wall supported by the frame, the first side wall including a door assembly including first and second doors, Reference 1 teaches box car 10 with side wall 11, door opening 12, and first and second doors 21 and 45 on track 19, supported by car structural members (16, 17, 18).
at least one of the first and second doors including: a door frame assembly formed from ultra high strength steel, Reference 1 teaches the door frame members for doors 21 and 45 (23/24/25/26/27 and 47/48/52/53/54). Reference 2 teaches door structural members formed from very high strength steel such as USIBOR 1500P. It would have been obvious to form Reference 1’s door frame assembly from such UHSS to improve deformation resistance.
a plurality of panels connected to the door frame assembly and formed from ultra high strength steel, Reference 1 teaches sheathing panels 22/46 connected to the door frames. Reference 2 teaches multiple door panels (inner panel 12 and outer panel 14) connected about a frame portion 28 with high strength steel panel construction. It would have been obvious to implement the railcar door sheathing/paneling as plural UHSS panels to improve stiffness and dent/impact resistance.
first and second connection pipe assemblies including first and second pipes formed from ultra high strength steel, Reference 3 teaches dual door rod locking assemblies 70a/70b including lock rods 72a/72b (steel tubing/pipes). Reference 2 teaches UHSS door steel example (USIBOR 1500P) with very high yield and ultimate strength. It would have been obvious to form the lock rods/pipes (72a/72b) from UHSS to reduce bending/yielding during impacts and use.
and a locking assembly connected to the door frame assembly, Reference 1 teaches locking mechanism 60 mounted to the door frame structure (bracket 61 to frame member 48; handle 64; link 69; locking bar 82) and/or mechanism 37 with handle 38 operating locking bolts 41/42.
wherein the ultra high strength steel has a yield strength of 140 ksi (965 MPa) or higher and a tensile strength of 170 ksi (1170 MPa) or higher. Reference 2 teaches USIBOR 1500P with yield about 1100 MPa (~159.5 ksi) and ultimate about 1500 MPa (~217.6 ksi), which exceed the claimed minima. Thus, selecting Reference 2’s steel for the door frame/panels/pipe assemblies satisfies the strength thresholds.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE FOR CLAIM 14
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Reference 1’s railcar side double-door system with Reference 2’s UHSS door material teachings to improve resistance to permanent deformation and maintain operability, a predictable result of using higher strength steel in known door structures (KSR). A person of ordinary skill would also have been motivated to incorporate Reference 3’s dual lock-rod/pipe arrangement and to fabricate those rods from UHSS to resist bending and impacts, again a predictable materials substitution for a known load-bearing member. The selection of steel meeting the minimum yield/tensile thresholds is routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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