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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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, 4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 1437183 A). Regarding claim 1: Johnson discloses a method for preventing a railcar from overturning (Fig.1), comprising: enabling a side of a carriage of a vehicle body (side of a; Fig.3) to comprise a side wing (e; Fig.3), so that airflow generates a centripetal force due to a difference in pressure on two surfaces of an airfoil of the side wing when the vehicle body travels through a curve portion of a track, to counteract a centrifugal force on the vehicle body by the centripetal force (Col.1, lines 20-25). Regarding claim 4: Johnson further discloses the method for preventing a railcar from overturning according to claim 1, wherein two sides of the carriage both comprise the side wing, so that a centripetal force is generated on each of the two sides of the carriage to counteract the centrifugal force on the vehicle body (Fig.2). Regarding claim 7: Johnson discloses an anti-overturning railcar, comprising: a vehicle body, comprising a carriage, wherein when the vehicle body travels through a curve portion of a track, the carriage comprises an outer rail side surface facing an outer rail side of the curve portion, and the carriage comprises an inner rail side surface facing an inner rail side of the curve portion (Fig.2 and Col.1, lines 20-25); and a side wing (e; Fig.3), located on a side of the carriage (Fig.3), wherein there is a fluid passage between the side wing and the carriage, the fluid passage comprises an inlet and an outlet, the side wing has a cross section in a shape of an airfoil and comprises a convex arc surface and a pressure surface opposite to the convex arc surface, a length of the convex arc surface is greater than a length of the pressure surface, and when the side wing is located on the outer rail side surface of the carriage, the convex arc surface of the side wing faces the outer rail side surface; and when the side wing is located on the inner rail side surface of the carriage, the pressure surface of the side wing faces the inner rail side surface (apparent from Fig.3 and Col.6, lines 120-129 allowing reversal of the camber as desired). Regarding claim 8: Johnson further discloses the anti-overturning railcar according to claim 7, wherein the convex arc surface comprises a front arc segment gradually expanding from the inlet relative to the pressure surface, and the convex arc surface comprises a rear arc segment extending from the front arc segment and gradually narrowing toward the outlet relative to the pressure surface (apparent from Fig.3 desired camber settings). Regarding claim 9: Johnson further discloses the anti-overturning railcar according to claim 7, further comprising a support assembly (f; Fig.3) and a reversion module (52,53,54,55; Fig.3), wherein the support assembly connects the side wing and the carriage, and the reversion module is connected with the support assembly to reverse the side wing (Fig.3). Regarding claim 10: Johnson further discloses the anti-overturning railcar according to claim 9, wherein the support assembly comprises at least one support connected with the carriage, and a pivoting shaft combined with the side wing and arranged on the support (f; Fig.7). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 11-12 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 2, 5, 11 and 12 . More specifically, the prior art fails to teach wherein the side wing is reversibly arranged on a side of the carriage, and the airflow generates a downforce due to a difference in pressure on the two surfaces of the side wing when the vehicle body travels on a straight portion of the track as claimed within claims 2 and 5 and wherein when the vehicle body travels on a straight portion of the track, the convex arc surface of the side wing faces a ground as claimed within claim 12. To combine these limitations as claimed with the above prior art would change the principle of operation of the reference since the side wings within Johnson are oriented with the longitudinal direction being in the vertical direction; therefore, the side wings are not able to provide downforce, but rather lateral forces to the vehicle. Further, the prior art fails to teach wherein the reversion module comprises a first gear combined with an end of the pivoting shaft, and a second gear arranged on the support and engaged with the first gear, and the second gear is connected with a driver, to be driven to rotate by the driver. To combine these limitations as claimed with the above prior art would change the principle of operation of the reference since the side wings within Johnson are connected to the reversion module utilizing different components than the support since the side wings within Johnson are automatically adjusted in their camber and angle of incidence with separate component connections . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1546 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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