DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the last two lines, the phrase “liquid that flown” should be changed to “liquid that flows”. In claim 11, the last two lines, the phrase “liquid that flown” should be changed to “liquid that flows”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 11-13, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fetz et al. (US 5,772,276) . Referring to Claim 1 1 : Fetz discloses a composite floor assembly comprising: an underframe (115, 180) (Fig. 3); a plurality of channels (130) disposed on top of the underframe and longitudinally extending along a length of the underframe, wherein each of the plurality of channels forms a recessed portion to allow flow of liquid (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 3); and an integral drain pan (216) integrated into the composite floor assembly such that the integral drain pan forms a recessed portion within the composite floor assembly (Fig. 4), wherein the integral drain pan is configured to accumulate the liquid that flown from the plurality of channels (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 4). Referring to Claim 1 2 : Fetz discloses the composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan (216) has a first height that is less than a second height of the underframe (115, 180) (Fig. 3). Referring to Claim 1 3 : Fetz discloses the composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan (216) comprises a plurality of holes hole (220) at a bottom of the integral drain pan to allow release of the liquid accumulated in the integral drain pan (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 3) . Referring to Claim 1 6 : Fetz discloses t he composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan (216) has a smaller longitudinal length than the composite floor assembly (100) (Figs. 2 and 4). Referring to Claim 1 7 : Fetz discloses t he composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan (216) is formed to have a sloped edge on at least one side of the integral drain pan (Fig. 4). Referring to Claim 1 9 : Fetz discloses t he composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan (216) is formed to have a sloped edge with a height that corresponds to a height of the integral drain pan (Fig. 4). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 14 , 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetz in view of LU 87866 A1 . Referring to Claim 1 4 : Fetz does not specifically teach that the integral drain pan is covered with a cover material that provides thermal insulation. However, LU 87866 teaches a “[f] loor for industrial vehicles and transport containers in general thermally insulated, with coating and structure in polyester-fiberglass resin laminate ” (see attached translation, last sentence) (see layer 13 in Fig. 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to provide the integral drain pan with a thermally insulating cover material, as taught by LU 87866 , in order to additionally protect the integral drain pan with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 1 5 : Fetz does not specifically teach that the cover material is resin infused fiberglass cloth. However, LU 87866 teaches a “[f] loor for industrial vehicles and transport containers in general thermally insulated, with coating and structure in polyester-fiberglass resin laminate ” (see attached translation, last sentence) (see layer 13 in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to provide the integral drain pan with a resin infused fiberglass cloth cover material, as taught by LU 87866, in order to additionally protect the integral drain pan with a reasonable expectation of success. 18. The composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan is formed to have a sloped edge with a height less than a height of the integral drain pan. Referring to Claim 2 0 : Fetz further teaches t he composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) is at a longitudinal end of the composite floor assembly (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 4 ) or at a location along a length of the composite floor assembly with the composite floor extending on either side of the integral drain pan. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetz in view of Battley et al. (US 2,466,073) . Referring to Claim 1 8 : Fetz does not specifically teach that the integral drain pan is formed to have a sloped edge with a height less than a height of the integral drain pan. However, Battley teache s a corrugated steel floor for refrigerator cars, wherein the integral drain pan is formed to have a sloped edge (7) with a height less than a height of the integral drain pan , which accommodates rivets (18) (Fig. 1) ( also see Battley’s rounded edges of channel-shaped gutter 31 in Fig. 2, which may be reasonably interpreted as a sloped edge) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to provide the integral drain pan with a sloped edge height less than the total heigh t of the integral drain pan , as taught by Battley , in order to provide optimized drainage, while simplifying manufacture of the drain pan and accommodating other components therein , with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst. , 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Claim(s) 1 -3, 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetz in view of Beers et al. (US 7,478,600) . Referring to Claim 1 : Fetz teaches a composite floor assembly comprising: an underframe (115, 180) (Fig. 3); a plurality of channels (130) disposed on top of the underframe and longitudinally extending along a length of the underframe, wherein each of the plurality of channels forms a recessed portion to allow flow of liquid (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 3); and an integral drain pan (216) integrated into the composite floor assembly such that the integral drain pan forms a recessed portion within the composite floor assembly (Fig. 4), wherein the integral drain pan is configured to accumulate the liquid that flown from the plurality of channels (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 4). Fetz does not teach that the composite floor assembly is used in a railcar. However, Beers teaches a temperature controlled railway car, wherein a composite floor (80) is used in a railcar (20) and includes drain pans (103) with openings (106) at the ends of the railcar (Fig. 8) (Col. 15, lines 31-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to use the composite floor assembly in a railcar, such as the one taught by Beers, in order to provide optimized drainage in a railcar with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 2 : Fetz further teaches the composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) has a first height that is less than a second height of the underframe (115, 180) (Fig. 3). Referring to Claim 3 : Fetz further teaches the composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) comprises a plurality of holes hole (220) at a bottom of the integral drain pan to allow release of the liquid accumulated in the integral drain pan (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 3) . Referring to Claim 6 : Fetz further teaches the composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) has a smaller longitudinal length than the composite floor assembly (100) (Figs. 2 and 4). Referring to Claim 7 : Fetz further teaches the composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) is formed to have a sloped edge on at least one side of the integral drain pan (Fig. 4). Referring to Claim 9 : Fetz further teaches the composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) is formed to have a sloped edge with a height that corresponds to a height of the integral drain pan (Fig. 4). Claim(s) 4 , 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetz in view of Beers and LU 87866 A1 . Referring to Claim 4 : Fetz does not specifically teach that the integral drain pan is covered with a cover material that provides thermal insulation. However, LU 87866 teaches a “[f] loor for industrial vehicles and transport containers in general thermally insulated, with coating and structure in polyester-fiberglass resin laminate ” (see attached translation, last sentence) (see layer 13 in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to provide the integral drain pan with a thermally insulating cover material, as taught by LU 87866, in order to additionally protect the integral drain pan with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 5 : Fetz does not specifically teach that the cover material is resin infused fiberglass cloth. However, LU 87866 teaches a “[f] loor for industrial vehicles and transport containers in general thermally insulated, with coating and structure in polyester-fiberglass resin laminate ” (see attached translation, last sentence) (see layer 13 in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to provide the integral drain pan with a resin infused fiberglass cloth cover material, as taught by LU 87866, in order to additionally protect the integral drain pan with a reasonable expectation of success. 18. The composite floor assembly of Claim 11, wherein the integral drain pan is formed to have a sloped edge with a height less than a height of the integral drain pan. Referring to Claim 10 : Fetz further teaches the composite floor assembly, wherein the integral drain pan (216) is at a longitudinal end of the composite floor assembly (Col. 5, lines 45-49) (Fig. 4 ) or at a location along a length of the composite floor assembly with the composite floor extending on either side of the integral drain pan. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetz in view of Beers and Battley . Referring to Claim 8 : Fetz does not specifically teach that the integral drain pan is formed to have a sloped edge with a height less than a height of the integral drain pan. However, Battley teache s a corrugated steel floor for refrigerator cars, wherein the integral drain pan is formed to have a sloped edge (7) with a height less than a height of the integral drain pan, which accommodates rivets (18) (Fig. 1) ( also see Battley’s rounded edges of channel-shaped gutter 31 in Fig. 2, which may be reasonably interpreted as a sloped edge). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fetz to provide the integral drain pan with a sloped edge height less than the total height of the integral drain pan, as taught by Battley, in order to provide optimized drainage, while simplifying manufacture of the drain pan and accommodating other components therein, with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst. , 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7858 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6682 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A