DETAILED ACTION 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 05/09/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 10, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 contains the duplicated phrase “is deflectable is deflectable.” Claim 13 shifts from “zone of coverage” to “zone of protection.” Claim 20 recites “forming an extruded body having body with a wall.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 21-24 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. With respect to claim 21, limitation e)(ii) recites “at least one first bumper having a first end that is attached to the body at a joining location, and a free end,” and limitation e)(iii) again recites “at least one first bumper having a first end that is attached to the body at a joining location, and a free end.” However, later portions of claim 21 recite “the first and second bumpers” and “the first bumper and second bumper.” Because limitation e)(iii) does not introduce a second bumper, it is unclear whether limitation e)(iii) was intended to recite a second bumper, an additional first bumper, or merely duplicated language. As written, claim 21 can be read as including the same “first bumper” twice, while later referring to an unintroduced “second bumper,” such that the scope of the claimed protector and railcar arrangement cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. Claim 21 is therefore indefinite. REFERENCES RELIED UPON Reference 1: US 9,789,885 B2 Reference 2: US 6,860,685 B2 Reference 3: US 2016/0174709 A1 Reference 4: US 2010/0104391 A1 Reference 5: US 10,676,113 B2 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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reference 1. ────────── A railcar protector for an interior of a railcar configured to mount to the railcar interior structure, comprising: a) a body configured to mount to the railcar interior structure, the body including a wall; b) at least one bumper having a first end that is attached to the body at a joining location, and a free end; c) wherein the bumper is arcuately configured; and d) wherein the bumper is deflectable in an upward or downward vertical direction relative to the body. Analysis Reference 1 discloses a railcar protector for the interior of an auto-rack railcar, namely bumper guard 100, configured to mount to railcar interior structure such as side wall 104. Reference 1 discloses a body configured to mount to the railcar interior structure, namely flat leg portion 106 having holes or apertures 108 aligning with holes 110 in side wall 104. Reference 1 further discloses a bumper having a first end attached to the body at a joining location, namely C-shaped section 112 extending from flat leg portion 106, and having a free end, namely curved portion 118 that is freely hanging and unattached. Reference 1 also discloses that the bumper is arcuately configured, namely the C-shaped section 112. Reference 1 further discloses that the bumper is deflectable in an upward or downward vertical direction relative to the body, in that curved portion 118 may move downwardly when C-shaped section 112 is contacted by a car door due to the spring action of the C-shaped section, and the bumper guard deforms when contacted. The “upward or downward” language is met by disclosure of downward vertical movement because the claim is disjunctive. ────────── The protector of claim 1, wherein the bumper comprises a rolled body portion. Analysis Reference 1 discloses the limitation of claim 1 as discussed above. Reference 1 further discloses that the bumper comprises a rolled body portion in the form of its C-shaped or elliptical C-shaped bumper sections 112, 162, and 212, each of which is a curved rolled-like body portion extending outwardly from the mounting leg and defining the forward/contact surface of the protector. In particular, Reference 1 discloses elliptical C-shaped section 162 with contact surface 152, and roughly elliptical C-shaped section 212. These are rolled bumper body portions within the ordinary meaning of the claim. ────────── The protector of claim 2, wherein the rolled body portion is configured to have a rolled condition which is deflectable upon the receipt of a deflecting force, and wherein said deflectable rolled body portion is biased to return to its rolled condition after being deflected, when the deflecting force is removed. Analysis Reference 1 discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above. Reference 1 further discloses that the bumper is resilient and may easily retain its shape and “spring back” when deformed by contact with a car door. Reference 1 also discloses that the curved portion 118 may move downwardly when contacted due to the spring action of the C-shaped section 112, and that the C-shaped section 162 further stiffens the spring action when contacted by a car door. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a rolled/arcuate bumper body portion that is deflectable upon receipt of force and biased to return after the force is removed. ────────── The protector of claim 1, wherein each bumper has a front surface that spans horizontally along the protector and is disposed forward of the rear wall. Analysis Reference 1 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Reference 1 further discloses that bumper guard 50 has contacting surface 52 on the outside of C-shaped section 62, extending outwardly from flat leg portion 56, and bumper guard 100 has contacting surface 102 on C-shaped section 112. Because bumper guards 50 and 100 are elongated guards for railcar sidewalls, those front/contact surfaces extend horizontally along the protector and are disposed forward of the rear wall or mounting wall portion 56/106. 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 4-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. ────────── The protector of claim 2, wherein a plurality of bumpers are provided, and wherein each bumper comprises a rolled body portion. Analysis Reference 1 discloses a railcar-mounted protector having a body/wall and an arcuate rolled-type bumper body portion, as discussed above for claims 1-3. Reference 2 discloses a plurality of bumpers in the same autorack context. More specifically, Reference 2 discloses that both ends 14a and 14b of flat foam material 14 are rolled over and welded to intermediate portion 14c, thereby forming a pair of parallel tubes 12 separated by the flat intermediate portion 14c. Reference 2 therefore teaches a plurality of bumpers on one protector, each comprising a rolled body portion. It would have been obvious to provide the single rolled bumper configuration of Reference 1 as a plurality of rolled bumpers as taught by Reference 2. 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 Reference 1 protector to include the dual rolled bumper arrangement of Reference 2 in order to increase vertical protection coverage on the autorack wall, because Reference 2 expressly teaches that the rolled double-tube configuration protects different door-trim heights on autorack sidewalls while remaining railcar-mounted and resilient. ────────── The protector of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of bumpers is connected to the body at a joining location. Analysis Reference 1 discloses a bumper connected to the body at a joining location, as discussed above. Reference 2 discloses that ends 14a and 14b of flat foam material 14 are rolled over and welded to intermediate portion 14c, thereby forming a pair of parallel tubes separated by the flat intermediate portion 14c. Thus, each of the plurality of bumpers in Reference 2 is connected to the common body/intermediate portion at its own joining location. The combination therefore teaches the additional limitation of claim 5. 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 joined dual rolled-bumper configuration of Reference 2 on the Reference 1 protector because doing so provides a common mounting body with two resilient bumper sections while preserving simple wall attachment and improving protected coverage. ────────── The protector of claim 4, wherein the rolled body portion of each bumper is configured to have a rolled condition which is deflectable upon the receipt of a deflecting force, and wherein each said deflectable rolled body portion is biased to return to its rolled condition after being deflected, when the deflecting force is removed. Analysis Reference 2 expressly discloses that the tubes 12 are designed to partially collapse when hit by a car door and resiliently return to tubular shape, and further discloses that the multiple-foam single tube protector 112, which may be arrayed in pairs on each level of the car, collapses when hit and quickly bounces back. Reference 1 likewise teaches spring-back resilient deformation. Accordingly, the combination teaches that each rolled bumper body portion is deflectable when receiving force and biased to return after the force is removed. 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 resilient rolled bumper behavior of Reference 2 with the railcar sidewall protector of Reference 1 so that multiple bumper sections could repeatedly absorb door-edge impacts and recover without permanent deformation. ────────── The protector of claim 5, wherein said plurality of bumpers comprises a first bumper and a second bumper, and wherein said first bumper has a first zone of coverage and wherein said second bumper has a second zone of coverage. Analysis Reference 1 discloses an elongated railcar bumper guard that provides a contact surface and resilient deformation region. Reference 2 expressly discloses a pair of substantially parallel coextensive tubes 12 spaced apart by intermediate portion 14c, and further teaches that the double- or single-tube configuration is used with post protection to offer protection for various heights of door trim. The upper rolled bumper and lower rolled bumper therefore provide respective first and second zones of coverage at different vertical positions relative to the body. 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 employ first and second bumper zones as taught by Reference 2 on the protector of Reference 1 because autorack vehicle doors present different edge and trim heights, and multiple vertically separated bumper zones improve the likelihood that a contacting door edge meets a protective surface rather than the railcar wall. ────────── The protector of claim 7, wherein said first bumper connects with said body at a first joining location, and wherein said second bumper connects with said body at a second joining location. Analysis Reference 2 discloses exactly this relationship. Ends 14a and 14b of flat foam material 14 are rolled over and welded to intermediate portion 14c, thereby forming a pair of tubes separated by the flat intermediate portion. The upper rolled end is joined at one side/edge of the intermediate portion, and the lower rolled end is joined at the opposite side/edge of the intermediate portion, i.e., first and second joining locations. Applied to the protector of Reference 1, the claim limitation is met. 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 separate joining locations for the first and second bumpers because rolling opposite edges of a common body into separate bumper portions is the straightforward and predictable way taught by Reference 2 to create a dual-bumper protector from one piece of material. ────────── The protector of claim 7, wherein said first bumper is deflectable in an at least an upward vertical direction relative to the body, and wherein said second bumper is deflectable in at least a downward vertical direction relative to the body. Analysis Reference 1 teaches that a C-shaped bumper 112 with free curved portion 118 moves downwardly when contacted due to spring action. Reference 2 teaches forming a pair of rolled bumpers from opposite ends 14a and 14b of common body material 14, spaced apart by intermediate portion 14c. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that when Reference 1’s vertically deflectable arcuate bumper concept is used at both the upper and lower edges of the common body as taught by Reference 2, the upper bumper and lower bumper naturally deploy and deform in opposite vertical senses relative to the body because they are formed on opposite edges of the central body. Thus, the combined teachings render obvious the upper/downward directional relationship of claim 9. 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 arrange upper and lower resilient bumpers on opposite edges of the common body so that the protector covers contact events above and below the body, thereby increasing vertical coverage and accommodating door edges at different heights as expressly desired in Reference 2. ────────── The protector of claim 7, wherein said first bumper is deflectable to roll into itself and wherein said second bumper is deflectable is deflectable to roll into itself. Analysis Reference 2 teaches rolled tube bumper portions that collapse when hit by a car door and then resiliently return. Reference 1 teaches a spring-action C-shaped bumper that deforms when contacted. In the combined structure, each rolled bumper deforms inwardly upon impact and, as a rolled/tubular resilient section, predictably rolls/compresses into its own tubular body volume during impact before recovering. Thus, the combination renders obvious the claimed rolling-into-itself deformation behavior for both the first and second bumpers. 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 employ resilient rolled bumper sections that deform inward into their own profile upon impact because that is the predictable manner in which rolled tubular bumper bodies absorb force while minimizing direct transfer of impact to the railcar wall and vehicle door. ────────── The protector of claim 7, wherein said first bumper is deflectable upward or downward relative to the joining location, and wherein said second bumper is deflectable upward or downward relative to the joining location. Analysis Reference 1 teaches that the free curved portion 118 of the C-shaped bumper moves vertically when contacted due to spring action. Reference 2 teaches that each rolled bumper is connected to the common body at its own rolled-over joining region along intermediate portion 14c. When these teachings are combined, each bumper is a resilient arcuate section connected at a joining location and capable of deflecting relative to that joining location when impacted. 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 bumper sections that flex relative to their respective joining locations because that is the ordinary mechanical consequence of using resilient rolled or C-shaped sections joined to a common mounting body, and it improves impact absorption without increasing railcar intrusion. ────────── The protector of claim 7, wherein said first bumper is deflectable to deflect in one or more of (i) an upward vertical direction relative to the body when the bumper unrolls, (ii) to roll into itself, and (iii) an upward or downward vertical direction relative to the joining location; and wherein said second bumper is deflectable to deflect in one or more of (i) a downward vertical direction relative to the body, (ii) to roll into itself, and (iii) an upward or downward vertical direction relative to the joining location. Analysis Reference 2 teaches rolled bumper sections made from rolled-over ends of a flat material and further teaches that such rolled sections collapse upon impact and return afterward. Reference 1 teaches spring-action C-shaped bumpers having free curved portions that move vertically relative to the body when contacted. Using Reference 1’s resilient vertically moving arcuate bumper mechanics on both opposite-edge rolled bumper sections of Reference 2 would have made it obvious that the upper bumper can unroll/deploy vertically relative to the body, can compress into its rolled profile, and can flex relative to its joining location, while the lower bumper can do the same in the opposite vertical sense. 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 configure the paired rolled bumpers so each could respond to impact by one or more known resilient modes—vertical deployment, inward rolling/compression, and flexure about its join—because doing so predictably broadens the usable protection envelope against different door-edge approaches and impact directions. ────────── The protector of claim 12, wherein the first zone of protection is defined by an area that includes the upward vertical displacement of the first bumper, and wherein the second zone of protection is defined by an area that includes the downward vertical displacement of the second bumper. Analysis Reference 2 teaches two spaced rolled bumpers providing coverage at different heights, while Reference 1 teaches vertical displacement of the resilient bumper when contacted. Accordingly, once the paired rolled bumpers of Reference 2 are provided with the vertical spring-action behavior of Reference 1, the first bumper necessarily defines a first protection zone including its upward displacement area, and the second bumper necessarily defines a second protection zone including its downward displacement area. 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 recognize and employ displacement-defined protection zones for the upper and lower bumpers because the purpose of adding multiple resilient bumper sections is to enlarge the effective protected area for vehicle doors at different elevations. ────────── The protector of claim 13, wherein the protector has a zone of protection that spans between the upward vertical displacement of the first bumper and the downward vertical displacement of the second bumper. Analysis Reference 2 teaches two vertically separated rolled bumper sections on a common body. Reference 1 teaches that an arcuate bumper section moves vertically when engaged. In the combined device, the overall protected region necessarily spans the area between the displaced positions of the upper and lower bumpers because both bumpers are part of one common wall-mounted protector and provide door-contact barriers above and below the central body. 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 regard the region between the upper and lower displaced bumpers as a combined zone of protection because that is the predictable functional result of using two vertically spaced resilient bumpers on one common railcar-mounted body. ────────── The protector of claim 5, wherein the plurality of bumpers includes the first bumper and a second bumper, wherein said first bumper is configured to pivot about the joining location where first bumper first end attaches to the body, and wherein the second bumper is configured to pivot about the joining location where first bumper first end attaches to the body. Analysis [ASSUMPTION] This rejection addresses claim 15 on the evident intended reading that the second bumper pivots about the joining location where the second bumper first end attaches to the body. Under that reading, Reference 2 teaches first and second rolled bumper sections joined at opposite joining regions of intermediate body portion 14c, and Reference 1 teaches resilient spring-action flexure of the arcuate bumper relative to the mounting wall/body. A rolled resilient bumper joined along an edge of a common body pivots/flexes about that joined edge when impacted. Thus, the combined teachings render obvious the pivoting relationship recited in claim 15. 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 configure the joined upper and lower rolled bumpers to pivot or flex about their respective joining regions because edge-joined resilient arcuate bumper sections conventionally absorb impact by rotation/flexure about the joined region rather than by rigid translation. ────────── The protector of claim 1, wherein the bumper has a leading portion that comprises a horizontal tangent along the rolled body portion that is furthest from the body wall and defines a forward surface. Analysis Reference 1 discloses a contact surface 52/102/152 on the outside of the C-shaped bumper section, i.e., a forward contact portion. Reference 2 expressly discloses that at least one end of the cushioning material is rolled into a tube and another portion extends tangentially out from the tube, and in the preferred embodiment both ends are rolled to form tubes spaced apart by a flat portion attached to the wall. The tangential relationship of the rolled tube and its outwardmost contact region renders obvious a leading portion that comprises a horizontal tangent along the rolled body portion furthest from the body wall and defines a forward surface. 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 adopt the tangential rolled-tube geometry of Reference 2 in the railcar bumper guard of Reference 1 because doing so provides a predictable forward contact surface on the outermost part of the bumper while preserving resilient door-edge cushioning. ────────── The protector of claim 5, wherein the plurality of bumpers includes a first bumper and a second bumper, wherein the first bumper has a leading portion that comprises a horizontal tangent along the rolled body portion that is furthest from the body wall and defines a first bumper forward surface, and wherein the second bumper has a leading portion that comprises a horizontal tangent along the rolled body portion that is furthest from the body wall and defines a second bumper forward surface. Analysis Reference 2 teaches a pair of rolled bumper tubes formed from opposite rolled ends 14a and 14b of foam material 14 and separated by flat body portion 14c. Each tube necessarily has an outwardmost tangential contact region. Reference 1 teaches the use of outward contacting surfaces on railcar bumper sections. Therefore, the combination teaches a first bumper forward surface and a second bumper forward surface respectively defined by the outermost tangential portions of the first and second rolled bumper body portions. 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 distinct forward contact surfaces on both rolled bumpers of the dual-bumper configuration so that each bumper presents a predictable strike face to a vehicle door edge at its respective elevation. ────────── The protector of claim 18, wherein the body wall defines a body wall plane, and wherein each of the first bumper forward surface and second bumper forward surface, is movably deflectable inwardly toward the body wall plane. Analysis Reference 2 expressly teaches that the tubes partially collapse when hit and resiliently return. Reference 1 teaches that the contacting surface of the C-shaped bumper may be pressed toward the side wall, allowing slight deformation and movement. Accordingly, in the combined device the first and second forward surfaces of the first and second rolled bumpers are movably deflectable inwardly toward the body wall plane defined by the flat intermediate attachment portion/body. 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 inwardly deflectable forward surfaces because inward resilient collapse toward the mounting wall is the expected and desired force-absorbing motion for railcar door-edge protectors mounted on sidewalls. Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 2 in view of Reference 1 and further in view of Reference 3. ────────── A method of producing a protector for a railway vehicle interior, comprising: a) forming an extruded body having body with a wall, and a pair of bumpers, each bumper of the bumper pair joining with and extending outwardly from the body wall, and including a first bumper connected to the body wall, and a second bumper connected to the body wall; b) forming said first bumper into a rolled configuration, and forming the second bumper into a rolled configuration; c) maintaining the respective rolled configurations of the first bumper and second bumper to produce respective rolled bumpers which when deflected from their respective rolled configurations, are biased to return to their respective rolled configurations. Analysis Reference 2 teaches forming a double-tube railcar protector from a flat piece of foam material 14, where ends 14a and 14b are rolled over and welded to intermediate portion 14c, thereby forming a pair of parallel tubes separated by flat intermediate portion 14c, with slotted holes 16 in the flat portion for mounting. Thus Reference 2 teaches a body/wall with a pair of bumpers joined to and extending outwardly from the body wall, and forming the first and second bumpers into rolled configurations. Reference 2 also teaches that the tubes partially collapse when hit and resiliently return, thereby maintaining rolled configurations that bias the bumpers to return after deflection. Reference 1 additionally teaches that the railcar bumper guard may be made from thermoplastic material extruded into shape, and Reference 3 expressly teaches that elongate bumper base/shell components can be formed using an extrusion process (col. 10) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform the Reference 2 rolled dual-bumper manufacturing process using the known extrusion-based elongated bumper-forming techniques of References 1 and 3. 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 extrusion in producing the dual rolled railcar protector of Reference 2 because References 1 and 3 teach extrusion as a known, efficient way to make elongated bumper profiles with repeatable cross-sections, thereby reducing manufacturing complexity and cost while yielding predictable resilient bumper geometry for railcar use. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 4 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 1, and claims 22 and 24 further in view of Reference 5. ────────── A railcar configured with one or more levels for transporting automobiles, the rail car comprising: a) one or more wheelsets; b) interior structure comprising a plurality of upstanding posts, sidewalls, a roof, and at least one deck for carrying automobiles; c) an interior space; d) wherein the plurality of upstanding posts are located on each lateral side of the interior space, and wherein the sidewalls are located on each lateral side of the interior space; and e) a plurality of protectors provided on the sidewalls, the protectors comprising a protector having: i) a body configured to mount to the railcar interior structure, the body including a wall; ii) at least one first bumper having a first end that is attached to the body at a joining location, and a free end; iii) at least one first bumper having a first end that is attached to the body at a joining location, and a free end; iv) wherein the first and second bumpers are arcuately configured; and v) wherein the first bumper and second bumper are deflectable in an upward or downward vertical direction relative to the body; f) wherein the protector is mounted to the sidewall with said bumpers disposed horizontally so that the first bumper is positioned at a vertical height that is higher than the vertical height of the second bumper; and g) wherein said bumpers project from the sidewall mounted body into the interior space. Analysis [ASSUMPTION] For this rejection, limitation e)(iii) is treated as reciting a second bumper. Reference 4 discloses the overall autorack railcar structure, including auto-rack car 10 having frame 12 supported by trucks 14 and wheels 16, sidewalls 20, roof 22, vertical posts 28, sidewall panels/screens 30, and multiple decks including lower and upper levels. Reference 2 discloses protectors on the inside surface of autorack railcar sidewalls, including double-tube protector 12 formed from rolled ends 14a and 14b of flat foam material 14 separated by flat intermediate portion 14c attached to the sidewall, with the tubes positioned between the vehicle door and the railcar wall. Reference 1 supplies the teaching that such arcuate bumper sections are C-shaped/arcuate and vertically deformable relative to the mounting body, with free curved portions that move under spring action when contacted. Thus the combination teaches a railcar having the claimed structural environment and sidewall-mounted protectors having a body/wall, first and second bumpers attached thereto, arcuate bumper configuration, the first bumper above the second, and the bumpers projecting into the interior space from the sidewall-mounted body. 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 place the known autorack door-edge protectors of Reference 2 on the conventional autorack structure of Reference 4 and to use the resilient arcuate bumper behavior of Reference 1 because all three references address preventing vehicle-door damage inside autorack railcars, and the combination merely applies known railcar wall protectors in their expected environment with their expected resilient impact response. ────────── The railcar of claim 21, wherein a first arrangement of protectors are provided horizontally along the sidewall at a first vertical position to form a first horizontal zone of protection, and wherein a second arrangement of protectors are provided horizontally along the sidewall at a second vertical position to form a second horizontal zone of protection. Analysis References 4, 2, and 1 teach the limitations of claim 21 as set forth above. Reference 5 further expressly teaches that multiple door edge guards 206 may be arranged end to end to span the length of railcar 100 or a portion of the length of railcar 100, and that multiple door edge guards may be arranged at varying heights along the length of railcar 100. Thus, Reference 5 teaches a first horizontal arrangement of protectors at one vertical position and a second horizontal arrangement at a different vertical position, thereby forming first and second horizontal zones of protection along the sidewall. 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 arrange the protectors of the combined References 4, 2, and 1 in multiple end-to-end rows at different vertical heights as taught by Reference 5 in order to tailor protection to different door heights and vehicle types while still covering long spans of the railcar sidewall. ────────── The railcar of claim 22, including a plurality of post protectors installed to provide a barrier between the interior space and one or more posts. Analysis References 4, 2, 1, and 5 teach the limitations of claim 22 as set forth above. Reference 2 further discloses a substantially flat foam strut covering piece 24 that goes over supporting posts/struts 26 of a conventional railcar, where those struts are between sections of the railcar sidewalls and the covering piece 24 provides protection between wall sections where the double or single tube protectors do not. Reference 2 therefore teaches a plurality of post protectors installed to provide a barrier between the interior space and one or more posts. 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 add post protectors to the sidewall protector arrangements because once sidewall door-edge protection is provided, the adjacent posts remain another exposed hard-contact structure, and Reference 2 expressly teaches covering those posts/struts to complete the protective barrier. ────────── The railcar of claim 21, wherein said plurality of protectors provided on the sidewalls includes a first plurality of protectors arranged end to end, and a second plurality of protectors arranged end to end. Analysis References 4, 2, and 1 teach the limitations of claim 21 as set forth above. Reference 5 further expressly teaches that multiple door edge guards 206 may be arranged end to end to span the length of railcar 100 or a portion of the length of railcar 100, and that such guards may be arranged at varying heights. Thus, Reference 5 teaches a first plurality of protectors arranged end to end and a second plurality of protectors arranged end to end. 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 arrange the protectors end to end in plural rows because Reference 5 expressly teaches end-to-end placement for spanning railcar wall lengths, and doing so predictably extends protection coverage without changing the basic protector structure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4641 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joseph Morano can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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