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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024 is 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, 5, 6, 15 and 16 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.
Claim 1 broadly encompasses five alternative floor-construction families. The specification expressly associates a stainless-steel or copper-containing/copper-bearing steel floor construction with the triple hopper independent transverse door embodiment, and states only that the dual hopper independent longitudinal door embodiment may include corrosion-inhibiting components. The specification does not describe the flat bottom gondola, dual hopper ballast, or twin hopper taconite ore floor constructions as being formed of stainless steel or copper-containing/copper-bearing steel. Claims 5 and 15, however, impose that material limitation across the full breadth of claim 1. Accordingly, the specification as filed does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of the full scope of claims 5 and 15 at the time of filing.
Claim 1 again encompasses five alternative floor-construction families. The specification discusses use or retention of the donor-car center partition in the triple hopper embodiment, and expressly states that the dual hopper independent longitudinal door, dual hopper ballast, and twin hopper taconite ore embodiments couple to the existing partition of the donor car. By contrast, the flat bottom gondola embodiment is described as coupling the floor construction to the sidewalls and bolster web of the donor car, with no disclosure that the attaching step utilizes at least a portion of the donor-car center partition. Because claims 4 and 16 depend from claim 1 without excluding the flat bottom gondola alternative, those claims encompass subject matter not reasonably conveyed by the disclosure as filed.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites that “a front two and a back two doors” in the dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction can be independently operated. This wording does not set out a reasonably certain door arrangement. It is unclear whether the claim intends to require two front doors and two back doors, the front two doors and the back two doors of a four-door arrangement, or some other grouping. As a result, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are not reasonably certain.
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1: US 4,696,088
Reference 2: US 6,279,487
Reference 3: US 2011/0179969
Reference 4: US 10,668,933
Reference 5: US 4,893,568
Reference 6: US 3,509,827
Reference 7: CA 2,182,470
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, 6-8, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Official Notice.
Claims 2, 3, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3 and Reference 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 5.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 5, and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 7.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 1 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
A method of modification of a railcar to form a modified railcar can be described as comprising the steps of i) providing an existing small cube covered hopper donor railcar supported on a pair of trucks; ii) removing a donor car floor construction including hopper discharge gates, and the outside hopper sheets, lower hopper floor and the partition floor forming the hopper chutes of the donor railcar; iii) forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes one of a) triple hopper independent transverse door floor construction, b) dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction, c) flat bottom gondola floor construction, d) dual hopper ballast car floor construction, and e) twin hopper taconite ore car floor construction, and iv) attaching the floor construction to the car to form the modified railcar.
ANALYSIS
As to step i), Reference 1 teaches modifying an existing covered multiple hopper donor railcar. Reference 1 describes a conversion operation applied to a 4427 plus cubic foot grain car and expressly states that the conversion involves taking the trucks off of the rail car and jacking the car on its center sill frame member. Reference 1 further identifies the retained donor structure as including center sill frame member 12, side sills 14, hoppers 18 and 20, vertical center bulkhead 24, side slope sheets 28 and 30, center slope sheet 36, end slope sheet 40, and hood member 44. Accordingly, Reference 1 teaches an existing covered hopper donor railcar that is initially supported on a pair of trucks before the conversion begins. The recitation “small cube” is not tied in the claim to a particular numeric cubic capacity or a distinct structural feature, and selecting a comparatively smaller covered hopper donor from the known class of covered hopper donor cars would have been an obvious matter of routine railcar-sizing choice based on desired service and loading limits.
As to step ii), Reference 1 expressly teaches removal of the donor lower hopper-bottom construction. Reference 1 teaches that the existing outlet gates are unwelded from the hopper mounting flanges and removed. Reference 1 further teaches that the end and center slope sheets are marked and cut horizontally from one side sill to the other, the portions below the cut are unwelded from the outside slope sheets and from the center sill hood and discarded, gusset plates extending from the center bulkhead to the center slope sheets are removed, and the outside slope sheets are cut down to their new size. These teachings correspond to removing the donor floor construction including hopper discharge gates, the outside hopper sheets, and the lower center/end/partition-forming floor portions that define the donor hopper chutes.
As to step iii), claim 1 is satisfied if the modified floor construction includes any one of the listed alternatives. For this rejection, the floor construction is met by alternative (b), namely a dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction. Reference 2 teaches a hopper car having a plurality of longitudinally spaced discharge openings 240 along bottom 238 of hopper car 210. Reference 2 further teaches that each discharge opening 240 has a door assembly 242 arranged in operable combination therewith, each door assembly 242 including a pair of longitudinally elongated discharge doors 244A and 244B arranged on opposite sides of longitudinal centerline 216 and mounted to underframe 214. Reference 2 also teaches that each door assembly 242 is provided with an independently operable door operating mechanism 250, including driver 252 and actuating shaft 254. Thus, Reference 2 teaches the claimed dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction.
As to step iv), Reference 1 teaches attaching the replacement lower hopper structure to the donor car. More specifically, Reference 1 teaches fabricating new lower slope-sheet portions, fabricating new outlet gate mounting flanges 32, bolting those flanges 32 to jig assembly 48, raising and clamping jig assembly 48 to center sill 12 with clamp members 58, forcing side slope sheets 28 and 30 outwardly against flange 32, and welding the new slope sheets to each other and to flange 32 so that the rebuilt lower hopper structure becomes part of the donor railcar. In the combined arrangement, the ordinary artisan would have used that same donor-car rebuilding procedure of Reference 1 but would have provided the longitudinal bottom door architecture of Reference 2, namely openings 240, door assemblies 242, doors 244A/244B, and operating mechanisms 250, as the new lower floor construction attached to the donor car.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the donor-car conversion method of Reference 1 with the longitudinal door floor arrangement of Reference 2 because Reference 1 already teaches removing and reconstructing the lower hopper-bottom structure of an existing covered hopper donor railcar, while Reference 2 teaches a known longitudinal bottom-discharge arrangement for hopper cars that provides independently controllable door assemblies and efficient discharge through elongated openings. Substituting the known door-floor arrangement of Reference 2 into the rebuilt lower hopper structure of Reference 1 would have been a predictable use of known railcar discharge technology to obtain expected unloading and flow-control benefits.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 6 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes forming a dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction.
ANALYSIS
Claim 6 further narrows step iii) of claim 1 to require that the floor construction formed is a dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction. Reference 2 directly teaches that feature. Reference 2 teaches a plurality of longitudinally spaced discharge openings 240 defined by slope sheets 235 and 237 along bottom 238 of hopper car 210, the openings being arranged in pairs on opposite sides of underframe 214. Reference 2 further teaches door assemblies 242, each with longitudinally elongated discharge doors 244A and 244B, and teaches that each door assembly 242 is provided with an independently operable door operating mechanism 250. Thus, when the donor covered hopper conversion of Reference 1 is carried out using the longitudinal-door discharge architecture of Reference 2, the result is precisely the claimed dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select the longitudinal-door floor arrangement of Reference 2 when carrying out the donor-car conversion of Reference 1 because Reference 2 teaches that such a longitudinal-door arrangement is a known hopper-bottom configuration providing controllable discharge from multiple door assemblies. Applying that known floor structure to the rebuilt donor lower hopper region of Reference 1 would have been a straightforward substitution of one known hopper-bottom arrangement for another.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 7 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 6 wherein the dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction forms hopper chutes that are steeper than in the donor cars.
ANALYSIS
Claim 7 additionally requires that the dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction forms hopper chutes that are steeper than in the donor cars. Reference 1 teaches re-forming and re-angling the donor hopper chute structure during conversion. Specifically, Reference 1 teaches that lower center slope sheet portion 36" is positioned at an angle relative to upper portion 36', lower end slope sheet portion 40" is positioned at an angle relative to upper portion 40', and side slope sheets 28 and 30 are cut down and forced outwardly to a new position relative to outlet mounting flange 32. Reference 2 teaches a longitudinal discharge arrangement using elongated openings 240 located between slope sheets 235 and 237 and closed by door assemblies 242. In view of those teachings, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that adapting the rebuilt donor hopper-bottom structure of Reference 1 to the elongated longitudinal openings 240 and corresponding door assemblies 242 of Reference 2 would call for chute geometry configured for more direct gravity flow into the longitudinal openings, thereby rendering obvious hopper chutes steeper than the original donor configuration.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the converted hopper chutes steeper than the donor chutes because Reference 1 already teaches changing donor chute angles during conversion, and steeper chute geometry is a predictable way to improve gravity flow toward elongated longitudinal openings such as openings 240 in Reference 2. The modification would have been a routine engineering adaptation to improve discharge performance.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 8 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 6 wherein a front two and a back two doors in the dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction can be independently operated.
ANALYSIS
Claim 8 further requires independent operation of a front two and a back two doors in the dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction. Reference 2 teaches that each discharge opening 240 has an associated door assembly 242 and that each door assembly 242 includes a pair of doors 244A and 244B. Reference 2 further teaches that each door assembly 242 is provided with an independently operable door operating mechanism 250, and teaches that any one of the door assemblies 242 can be operated independently of the other door assemblies on hopper car 210. In a four-door arrangement having forward and rearward door assemblies, the forward pair and rearward pair are therefore independently operable. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8, that teaching satisfies the requirement that the front two and back two doors can be independently operated.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide independent operation of forward and rear door sets because Reference 2 expressly teaches independent operation of one door assembly 242 relative to another by separately operable mechanisms 250. Applying that known independent-control architecture to the converted donor car of Reference 1 would have predictably allowed selective unloading and controlled partial discharge.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 14 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 1 wherein the modified railcar utilizes a covered roof.
ANALYSIS
Claim 14 further requires that the modified railcar utilizes a covered roof. Reference 1 is expressly directed to conversion of an existing covered multiple hopper donor railcar. Reference 1 teaches modifying the lower hopper-bottom structure by removing outlet gates and lower slope-sheet portions and rebuilding the lower hopper region on retained donor structure. Reference 1 does not teach removal of the donor upper covered body. Thus, the modified railcar produced by the conversion of Reference 1 continues to utilize the covered roof of the donor covered hopper. Reference 2 changes the bottom door/discharge arrangement and does not require or suggest removal of that covered upper structure.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain and use the covered roof because Reference 1 starts with a covered donor hopper car and modifies the lower discharge structure, not the upper cover arrangement. Preserving the covered roof while incorporating the longitudinal-door floor of Reference 2 would have predictably maintained weather protection for lading while improving bottom discharge operation.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 18 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
The modified railcar formed according to the method of claim 1 wherein the step of forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes forming a dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction, and wherein the modified railcar utilizes a covered roof.
ANALYSIS
Claim 18 further requires that the resulting modified railcar includes the dual hopper independent longitudinal door floor construction and utilizes a covered roof. As discussed above, Reference 2 teaches the dual hopper independent longitudinal-door arrangement through discharge openings 240, door assemblies 242, doors 244A/244B, and independently operable mechanisms 250, while Reference 1 teaches the donor covered-hopper conversion in which the covered upper body remains while the lower hopper-bottom structure is rebuilt. Accordingly, the resulting structure produced by combining Reference 1 and Reference 2 is the claimed modified railcar.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to realize the resulting railcar of claim 18 because combining the covered donor conversion of Reference 1 with the independently controlled longitudinal-door floor of Reference 2 yields a predictable resulting railcar having the expected covered body and longitudinal-door discharge floor.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 20 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 ────────────────────────────────────────
The railcar formed according to the method of claim 1.
ANALYSIS
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Reference 1 teaches the donor covered hopper railcar and the removal and reconstruction of the lower hopper-bottom structure, while Reference 2 teaches the longitudinal-door discharge floor architecture that is used as the new floor construction. The combined structure therefore is a railcar formed according to a method meeting claim 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to realize the resulting railcar of claim 20 because application of the known longitudinal-door discharge floor of Reference 2 to the donor-car conversion of Reference 1 would have predictably produced a modified hopper railcar having the structural result recited by claim 20.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Official Notice.
────────────────────────────────────────
5. The method according to claim 1 wherein the floor construction is formed of a stainless steel or a copper containing steel construction or copper bearing steel construction.
ANALYSIS
Claim 5 further requires that the floor construction is formed of a stainless steel or a copper containing steel construction or copper bearing steel construction. It is officially noticed that, at the time of the invention, it was well known in the railroad hopper-car art to form lading-contacting hopper floor members, including slope-sheet portions of hopper-bottom floor constructions, from stainless steel, or to provide stainless steel surfacing thereon, as a known material-selection expedient to improve corrosion resistance, wear resistance, and lading flow. In the modified railcar formed by the combination of Reference 1 and Reference 2, the rebuilt hopper-bottom floor construction includes lading-contacting chute / floor portions. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form those rebuilt floor portions of stainless steel as a known suitable material for that intended service.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use stainless steel for the rebuilt floor construction because stainless steel was a known suitable material for hopper-bottom lading-contacting members where improved resistance to corrosion and more reliable gravity flow of lading were desired.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 2 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3 and Reference 4 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes forming a triple hopper transverse door floor construction.
ANALYSIS
Claim 2 further narrows step iii) of claim 1 to the specific option of forming a triple hopper transverse door floor construction. Reference 3 teaches a hopper railcar body supported on spaced trucks and having a plurality of discharge chutes forming pockets for the body which open to the interior. Reference 3 also teaches a door operating system in which touch plates 52 are provided for operating each of three doors individually, namely door A, door B, and door C, or all doors simultaneously. Reference 4 teaches a mechanism for operating the transversely oriented doors of a railroad hopper car and teaches selective operation of one or any number of the transversely oriented door pairs on the car. In view of these teachings, the ordinary artisan would have modified the donor conversion backbone of Reference 1, while carrying forward the base claim 1 combination including Reference 2, by using the three-pocket hopper-bottom arrangement of Reference 3 together with the transverse door orientation and selective operation taught by Reference 4, thereby arriving at a triple hopper transverse door floor construction. Reference 2 remains in the combination because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and thus carries forward the references applied to claim 1, and Reference 2 further evidences that independently operable bottom discharge door systems were known in reconstructed hopper-bottom railcars.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the donor-car reconstruction of Reference 1 so that the rebuilt lower structure used a three-pocket floor arrangement with transverse doors because Reference 3 teaches multiple discharge chutes forming pockets and individual door control, while Reference 4 teaches that transverse door pairs are a known hopper-door arrangement that can be selectively operated. Incorporating those known features into the donor conversion platform of Reference 1 would have predictably yielded a triple hopper transverse door floor construction.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 3 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3 and Reference 4 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 2 wherein the doors of a door system of the triple hoppers are independently operated.
ANALYSIS
Claim 3 further requires that the doors of the door system of the triple hoppers are independently operated. Reference 3 expressly teaches that touch plates 52 are used for operating each of three doors individually, namely door A, door B, and door C, or all doors simultaneously. Reference 4 likewise teaches selective operation of one or any number of the transversely oriented door pairs on a railroad hopper car. Thus, the combined teachings of References 3 and 4 expressly provide the independent door operation required by claim 3, while References 1 and 2 remain part of the combination through the dependency chain from claim 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide independent operation of the triple-hopper doors because Reference 3 directly teaches individual operation of door A, door B, and door C, and Reference 4 teaches selective actuation of transverse door pairs. Applying that known independent-control functionality to the converted donor railcar of Reference 1 would have predictably enabled selective and metered unloading.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 19 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3 and Reference 4 ────────────────────────────────────────
The modified railcar formed according to the method of claim 1 wherein the step of forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes forming a triple hopper independent transverse door floor construction, and wherein the modified railcar utilizes a covered roof.
ANALYSIS
Claim 19 further requires the resulting railcar to have a triple hopper independent transverse door floor construction and a covered roof, thus also carrying forward the specific teachings of Reference 3 and Reference 4 discussed with respect to claims 2 and 3.
As explained above, Reference 3 teaches multiple discharge chutes forming pockets and independent door operation through touch plates 52 associated with doors A, B, and C, while Reference 4 teaches transverse door pairs and selective operation of one or any number of those pairs. Reference 1 teaches conversion of an existing covered donor hopper car while retaining the covered upper body and rebuilding the lower hopper-bottom structure. Thus, the resulting railcar made obvious by the combination of References 1-4 is a covered modified railcar having a triple hopper independent transverse door floor construction.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to realize the resulting railcar of claim 19 because the combined references teach each constituent feature of that resulting structure: a donor covered hopper conversion platform, a three-pocket floor arrangement, independent door control, and transverse door operation. The resulting covered modified railcar would have been a predictable structural result of the combination.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 9 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 5 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes forming a flat bottom gondola floor construction.
ANALYSIS
Claim 9 further narrows step iii) of claim 1 to the specific option of forming a flat bottom gondola floor construction. Reference 5 teaches converting a hopper car 10 having hoppers 12 and dump doors 14 into a gondola-type car by removing the bottom hopper structure and replacing it with a new floor structure 29. Reference 5 further teaches that removal of the hopper bottom leaves major donor structural members in place and that the new floor structure is then applied to the retained donor structure to form the converted gondola-type car. Thus, Reference 5 supplies the specific flat bottom gondola floor construction missing from the base claim 1 combination. Reference 2 remains in the combination because claim 9 depends from claim 1 and therefore carries forward the references applied to claim 1, although Reference 2 is not specifically relied upon for the added flat-bottom gondola limitation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the flat-bottom gondola floor of Reference 5 in the donor-car reconstruction of Reference 1 because both references address reuse of hopper-type donor railcars by removing the original lower hopper-bottom structure and replacing it with a different floor arrangement. The substitution of the flat-bottom gondola floor of Reference 5 into the donor conversion process of Reference 1 would have been a predictable repurposing of an existing donor car for gondola service.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 10 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 5, and further in view of Reference 6 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 9 wherein in the step of attaching the floor construction to the car the flat bottom gondola floor construction is coupled to the sidewalls and to the bolster web of the donor car to form the modified flat bottom gondola railcar.
ANALYSIS
Claim 10 further requires that the flat bottom gondola floor construction is coupled to the sidewalls and to the bolster web of the donor car. Reference 5 teaches applying the new floor structure 29 to retained donor structure after removal of hoppers 12 and dump doors 14. Reference 6 specifically teaches a covered hopper donor car 10 having side sheets 24, end floor sheet 56, and an upper vertical bolster web 60. Reference 6 further teaches that bolster web 60 forms a partial end bulkhead secured to floor sheet 56 at T-connection 62 and has connecting plates 64 at its lateral edges in contact with side sheets 24. Thus, Reference 6 expressly teaches the bolster web 60 as an existing donor structural member tied both to floor sheet 56 and to side sheets 24. In view of that teaching, it would have been obvious when carrying out the flat-bottom gondola conversion of Reference 5 on the donor conversion platform of Reference 1, while carrying forward Reference 2 through claim 1, to couple the replacement flat-bottom floor to the donor sidewalls and to donor bolster web 60.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to couple the replacement flat-bottom floor to the sidewalls and bolster web because Reference 6 identifies bolster web 60 as a load-bearing structural member already integrated with floor sheet 56 and side sheets 24. Using that existing donor member in the floor attachment path of the Reference 5 gondola conversion would have predictably improved structural continuity and reduced unnecessary removal of serviceable donor structure.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 11 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 5, and further in view of Reference 6 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 10 wherein the bolster web becomes part of the elements defining the interior laden carrying space in the modified railcar.
ANALYSIS
Claim 11 further requires that the bolster web becomes part of the elements defining the interior laden carrying space in the modified railcar. Reference 6 expressly teaches that upper vertical bolster web 60 forms a partial end bulkhead, is secured to floor sheet 56, and is connected laterally to side sheets 24 by connecting plates 64. By forming a partial end bulkhead within the car body, bolster web 60 is itself part of the structure defining the interior lading space. Therefore, when the floor of the modified railcar is coupled to bolster web 60 as in claim 10, the bolster web necessarily becomes part of the elements defining the interior laden carrying space of the modified railcar.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain the bolster web as part of the interior laden carrying space because Reference 6 teaches that bolster web 60 already functions as a partial end bulkhead. Reusing that existing donor structural boundary element in the modified railcar would have predictably preserved structural integrity and avoided redundant added boundary structure.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 12 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 7 ────────────────────────────────────────
The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of forming a floor construction of the modified railcar which includes forming a dual hopper ballast car floor construction.
ANALYSIS
Claim 12 includes every limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 carries forward Reference 1 and Reference 2 applied to claim 1.
Claim 12 further narrows step iii) of claim 1 to the specific option of forming a dual hopper ballast car floor construction. Reference 7 teaches ballast-distributing railroad hopper cars with multiple ballast carrying hoppers and bottom discharge control members. Reference 7 further teaches a pair of ballast carrying hoppers with associated hopper discharge control members, and in another embodiment teaches a railcar 301 having a pair of large hoppers 302, each hopper 302 having a centered elongate bottom discharge opening 303 and an elongate hopper discharge control assembly 304. These teachings provide the specific dual-hopper ballast-car floor arrangement missing from the base claim 1 combination. Reference 2 remains in the combination because claim 12 depends from claim 1 and therefore carries forward the references applied to claim 1, although Reference 7 supplies the specific ballast floor arrangement.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to adapt the donor-car conversion of Reference 1 to use the dual-hopper ballast floor arrangement of Reference 7 because Reference 7 teaches that paired hoppers with associated discharge control members are a known ballast-car configuration. Applying that known ballast floor arrangement to the donor conversion platform of Reference 1 would have predictably repurposed the donor railcar for ballast service.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, and 15-17 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.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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 3615