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 statement filed 06/28/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Within Para.[0038], the component mounting the legs “114a” and “124a” to the deck “60” is designated as a plate edge holding hand “115a” and “125a”, which is the same component name as the plate edge holding hand “154a” for the edge of the plates while in the transporting position. Examiner recommends changing the component name for the plate edge holding hand 115a and 125a to “leg mounting plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Šindel (PL 65609 Y1).
Regarding claim 1: Šindel discloses a large plate tilt railroad car (Fig.11) comprising: a frame (3; Fig.11) a deck connected to the frame (31; Fig.11); a plate support assembly connected to the deck (1,2; Fig.11), the plate support assembly including a plurality of spaced-apart pivotable plate supporters (multiple 2; Fig.10 including crossmembers 21 as shown in Fig.4) including a first plate supporter (left 2; Fig.10 including left crossmember 21 as shown in Fig.4)) positioned adjacent to a first end of the deck and a last plate supporter (right 2; Fig.10) positioned adjacent to a second end of the deck (Apparent from Fig.10); and a first plate blocker supported by the first plate supporter (231; Fig.4 and left end of Fig.10).
Regarding claim 2: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the first plate blocker is connected to a first plate holder of the first plate supporter (apparent from Fig.4 and 9).
Regarding claim 3: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 2, wherein the first plate blocker (231; Fig.4) includes a base (left side 23; Fig.4) connected to the first plate holder (left end crossmember 21; Fig.4) and a first bulkhead connected to and extending outwardly from the base (projecting inner surface of 231; Fig.4), wherein the first bulkhead is configured to be engaged by an end of a steel plate supported by the plate support assembly to prevent substantial longitudinal movement of the steel plate (apparent from Fig.4).
Regarding claim 6: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the first plate blocker (231; Fig.4) is part of a first plate movement blocker that includes an anchor (holding surface of adjacent stabilizing crossmembers 21; Fig.4) connected to a second plate supporter of the plurality of plate supporters (apparent from Fig.4).
Regarding claim 7: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 6, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes a first load transfer assembly configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the bulkhead of the first plate blocker to the anchor (top longitudinal members 22; Fig.4).
Regarding claim 8: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 7, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes a second load transfer assembly configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the bulkhead of the first plate blocker to the anchor (lower longitudinal members 22; Fig.4).
Regarding claim 9: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 8, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes a third load transfer assembly configured to transfer forces on the anchor to the deck (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 10: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 7, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes a third load transfer assembly configured to transfer forces on the anchor to the deck (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 11: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 1, which includes a second plate blocker (231; Fig.9) supported by the last plate supporter (right end of Fig.10).
Regarding claim 12: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 11, wherein the first plate blocker is configured to be engaged by a first end of a steel plate supported by the plate support assembly to prevent substantial longitudinal movement of the steel plate in a first direction, and wherein the second plate blocker is configured to be engaged by a second end of the steel plate supported by the plate support assembly to prevent substantial longitudinal movement of the steel plate in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (apparent from both ends of Fig.10).
Regarding claim 13: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 11, wherein the first plate blocker includes a first base and a first bulkhead connected to and extending outwardly from the first base, wherein the first bulkhead is configured to be engaged by a first end of a steel plate supported by the plate support assembly to prevent substantial longitudinal movement of the steel plate in a first direction, and wherein the second plate blocker includes a second base and a second bulkhead connected to and extending outwardly from the second base, wherein the second bulkhead is configured to be engaged by a second end of the steel plate supported by the plate support assembly to prevent substantial longitudinal movement of the steel plate in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (apparent from both ends of Fig.10).
Regarding claim 16: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 11, wherein the first plate blocker is part of a first plate movement blocker, and the second plate blocker is part of a second plate movement blocker (apparent from Fig.10).
Regarding claim 17: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 16, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes at least one load transfer assembly configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the first plate blocker to the deck, and wherein the second plate movement blocker includes at least one load transfer assembly configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the second plate blocker to the deck (longitudinal members 22; Fig.10).
Regarding claim 18: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 16, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes a first plurality of different load transfer assemblies configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the first plate blocker to the deck, and wherein the second plate movement blocker includes a second plurality of different load transfer assemblies configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the second plate blocker to the deck (upper and lower longitudinal members 22; Fig.10).
Regarding claim 19: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 11, wherein the first plate blocker (231; Fig.4) is part of a first plate movement blocker that includes a first anchor connected to a second one of the plate supporters (holding surface of adjacent stabilizing crossmembers 21; Fig.4 and left side of Fig.10), and the second plate blocker (231; Fig.9) is part of a second plate movement blocker that includes a second anchor connected to a second to last one of the plate supporters (holding surface of adjacent stabilizing crossmembers 21; Fig.4 and right end of Fig.10).
Regarding claim 20: Šindel further discloses the railroad car of Claim 19, wherein the first plate movement blocker includes a first plurality of different load transfer assemblies configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the first plate blocker to the first anchor and to the deck, and wherein the second plate movement blocker includes a second plurality of different load transfer assemblies configured to transfer forces incurred by the steel plate engaging the second plate blocker to the second anchor and the deck (upper and lower longitudinal members 22 as well as base support 1; Fig.10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are 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:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 4-5 and 14-15.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach the first plate blocker including a gate connected to the first bulkhead as claimed in dependent claim 4. There would be no motivation to combine a gate component to the first plate blockers within the plate support assembly of Šindel, since the transported plates are secured to the plate supports utilizing securing belts on every plate support as shown in Figs.4 and 5 and it would require an improper level of hindsight to do so. The above reasoning likewise applies to dependent claims 5, 14 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615