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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the FINAL office action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/18/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 are maintained in rejection despite Applicant’s arguments/amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the limitations specifying “having a leaning angle of 7 degrees”, “having a leaning angle of 5 degrees”, and “having a camber angle of 4 degrees” are indefinite because the claim does not specify a reference plane, line, or datum from which these angular measurements are taken (e.g., relative to a vertical plane, horizontal baseline, or adjacent structural component). Therefore, the boundaries of the claimed vehicle section bars cannot be clearly determined.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected for their dependency on claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 111232002 A, provided).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches (Fig. 1-4): An aluminum alloy metro vehicle body section bar capable of matching and combining (para. 0005 and 0078), comprising a roof section bar (12), an upper edge beam section bar (21), a side wall section bar (2), a lower edge beam section bar (31) and a floor section bar (33)(Fig. 2), the adjacent section bars being fixedly connected to form a vehicle body (Fig. 1-2), wherein the roof section bar (12) comprises roof edge section bars (rounded roof edge profiles 11, 11’) of two widths to respectively adapt to an A-type vehicle and a B-type vehicle (Fig. 2; para. 0078) and the floor section bar (33) comprises underframe edge section bars (floor edge profiles 32, 32’) of two widths to respectively adapt to the A-type vehicle and the B-type vehicle (Fig. 2; para. 0078).
Liu further teaches the Type A and Type B vehicle bodies with drum-shaped or trapezoidal shaped cross-section types and the same main outline dimensions (para. 0004, lines 1-4) having the upper edge beam section bar (21), the side wall section bar (2), and the lower edge beam section bar (31), and “due to the large differences in the technical systems of domestic manufacturers, the different equipment installation interfaces of suppliers, and the more or less personalized needs of users, there are hundreds of types of subway train bodies” (para. 0004).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Liu to replace the upper edge beams, side wall middle sections, and lower edge beams with their component counterparts having different sizes, shapes, or joining portions as needed for accommodating a drum-shaped vehicle or a trapezoidal vehicle, to adequately support the change in load requirements of the rail vehicle while adhering to structural size limitations of type A/B vehicle.
A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Liu teaches (annotated Fig. 2 below and Fig. 11): an upper edge beam (21) having a leaning angle (Fig. 2), a side wall middle section bar of the vehicle having a leaning angle (Fig. 2), and a lower edge beam (31) of the vehicle having a camber angle (Fig. 11), but does not explicitly teach the leaning angles of 7 degrees and 5 degrees for the upper edge beam, leaning angles of 7 degrees and 5 degrees for the side wall middle section bar, and a camber angle of 4 degrees for the lower edge beam.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railway vehicle body to have an upper edge beam having a leaning angle of 7 degrees and 5 degrees, a side wall middle section to have a leaning angle of 7 degrees and 5 degrees, and a lower edge beam with a camber angle of 4 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Modifying a leaning angle of the upper edge beam, a leaning angle of the side wall middle section, or a camber angle of the lower edge beam helps improve train strength and shape by helping the car body handle heavy loads, keep proper side clearance, and stop the middle part from sagging over time.
Regarding claim 2, Liu further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the roof section bar (12) comprises a first roof section bar located in a middle of a roof (annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second roof section bar located between the first roof section bar and the roof edge section bar (11)(annotated Fig. 2 below); and the first roof section bar, the second roof section bar and the roof edge section bar (11) are fixed in sequence by plug-in connection and welding (para. 0005, 0020 and 0094 discloses welding dozens of profiles of the vehicle body structure and plug joints between connections).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the floor section bar (33) comprises a first floor section bar located in a middle of a floor (annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second floor section bar located between the first floor section bar and the underframe edge section bar (32)(annotated Fig. 2 below); and the first floor section bar, the second floor section bar and the underframe edge section bar (32) are fixed in sequence by plug-in connection and welding (para. 0005, 0020 and 0094 discloses welding dozens of profiles of the vehicle body structure and plug joints between connections).
Regarding claim 5, Liu further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the drum-shaped vehicle body comprises an upper edge beam (21) of the drum-shaped vehicle, a side wall middle section bar (22) of the drum-shaped vehicle and a lower edge beam (31) of the drum-shaped vehicle (Fig. 2); and the trapezoidal vehicle body comprises an upper edge beam (21) of the trapezoidal vehicle, a side wall middle section (22) bar of the trapezoidal vehicle and a lower edge beam (31) of the trapezoidal-shaped vehicle (Fig. 2; See rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Liu further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the A-type vehicle body comprises a roof edge section bar (11) of the A-type vehicle with a wider width and an underframe edge section bar (32) of the A-type vehicle with a wider width (Fig. 2); and a B-type vehicle body comprises a roof edge section bar (11’) of the B-type vehicle with a narrower width and an underframe edge section bar (32’) of the B-type vehicle with a narrower width (Fig. 2).
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 8-10, note that the operation of the prior structure inherently requires the method steps as claimed. Replacing structural components of a railway vehicle to convert an A-type vehicle body to a B-type vehicle body, or from a drum-shaped vehicle cross section to a trapezoid-shaped vehicle cross section is routine to one of ordinary skill in the art, as evident by the reference Liu in para. 0004.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 111232002 A, provided) in view of Gong et al. (CN 106250620 A, provided).
Regarding claim 4, Liu does not explicitly teach that the side wall section bar comprises a first side wall section bar, a second side wall section bar, a side wall middle section bar and a third side wall section bar successively connected from top to bottom; the first side wall section bar, the second side wall section bar, the side wall middle section bar and the third side wall section bar are fixed in sequence by plug-in connection and welding; an upper end of the first side wall section bar is fixed to the upper edge beam by plug-in connection and welding; and the third side wall section bar is fixed to the lower edge beam section bar by plug-in connection and welding.
However, Gong teaches an alternate rail car body, wherein (Fig. 3-4): a side wall section bar comprises a first side wall section bar (121), a second side wall section bar (122), a side wall middle section bar (123) and a third side wall section bar (124) successively connected from top to bottom (Fig. 3); the first side wall section bar, the second side wall section bar, the side wall middle section bar and the third side wall section bar are fixed in sequence by plug-in connection and welding (welded joint 127; Fig. 3-4); an upper end of the first side wall section bar (121) is fixed to the upper edge beam (117) by plug-in connection and welding (Fig. 3-4); and the third side wall section bar (124) is fixed to the lower edge beam section bar (111) by plug-in connection and welding (Fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Liu to interconnect four side wall section bars to each other, and have the first and third side wall section bars connect to an upper edge beam and lower edge beam respectively, using plug-in joints and welding, as disclosed by Gong, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a highly rigid, load-bearing structure, typically used in modular building unit construction for the vehicle body.
Regarding claim 7, Liu further teaches (Fig. 1-4): an A-type drum-shaped vehicle and an A-type trapezoidal vehicle body share a first roof section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), a second roof section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), a roof edge section bar (11) of the A-type vehicle, side wall section bar (2), a first floor section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), a second floor section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below) and an underframe edge section bar (32) of the A-type vehicle (Fig. 2; para. 0004); the B-type drum-shaped vehicle and the B-type trapezoidal vehicle body share a first roof section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), a second roof section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), a roof edge section bar (11’) of the B-type vehicle, a side wall section bar (2), a first floor section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below), a second floor section bar (annotated Fig. 2 below) and an underframe edge section bar (32’) of the B-type vehicle (Fig. 2; para. 0004).
It is noted that assembling Type-A and Type-B vehicles of different shapes (i.e. drum-shaped or trapezoidal-shaped) with the same structural components is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, as evident by the reference Liu.
Liu does not explicitly teach that the side wall section bar (2) comprises a first side wall section bar, a second side wall section bar, a third side wall section bar.
However, Gong teaches an alternate rail car body, wherein (Fig. 3-4): a side wall section bar comprises a first side wall section bar (121), a second side wall section bar (122), a side wall middle section bar (123) and a third side wall section bar (124) successively connected from top to bottom (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Liu to interconnect four side wall section bars to each other using plug-in joints and welding, as disclosed by Gong, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a highly rigid, load-bearing structure, typically used in modular building unit construction for the vehicle body.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “The Office Action does not identify the leaning angles or camber angle recited in amended claims 1 and 8 as known result-effective variables in Liu, nor does Liu disclose any range or target value from which the claimed 7-degree, 5-degree, and 4-degree values could be selected by routine optimization. The rejection instead relies on the general proposition that different sizes or shapes could be substituted. That generalized rationale does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have selected the particular coordinated geometry now claimed, in which the drum-shaped upper edge beam and drum-shaped side wall middle section bar both use 7-degree leaning angles, the trapezoidal upper edge beam and trapezoidal side wall middle section bar both use 5-degree leaning angles, and the drum-shaped lower edge beam uses a 4-degree camber angle.”
The office responds that these limitations were not presented at the time of the Non-Final Rejection, and will be examined accordingly in this Office Action.
The applicant argues that “even if Gong were combined with Liu for the limited teachings identified in the Office Action, the combination would still fail to teach or suggest the amended requirements of claim 1”.
The office responds that the reference Gong was not used to teach the claimed 7-degree, 5-degree, and 4-degree values. These claimed limitations will be examined in this Office Action.
The applicant argues that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Liu based on Gong in the manner proposed by the Office Action because doing so would defeat Liu's very purpose. Liu is not trying to increase the number of independently parameterized or project- specific side-wall profile options. Liu is trying to reduce profile variety and increase sharing by making the A/B vehicle bodies differ only in limited roof-edge and floor-edge modules while maintaining consistency of the remaining body sections, including the side wall. Importing Gong's parameterized side-wall segmentation and section-generation approach into Liu would move Liu away from a standardized, shared-profile platform and toward the very project-by-project redesign and parameterized profile variation that Liu seeks to avoid. The asserted modification would therefore increase design complexity and profile variation, not reduce it.”
The office responds that the reference Gong is directed to teaching four side wall section bars forming a side wall to be interconnected using plug-in joints and welding to an upper edge beam and lower edge beam respectively. Gong is also directed to teaching a method of forming the side wall by connecting four side wall sections, as a method for manufacturing the side wall of Liu, which does not increase the number of independently parameterized or project-specific side-wall profile options.
Additionally, the reference Gong is not used for teaching or modifying Liu into a parameterized side-wall segmentation. In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that “Modifying Liu to adopt Gong's side-wall sectionalization and parameterized profile-generation approach would change Liu's principle of operation from a shared, standardized body platform with limited replaceable modules into a parameter-driven design process in which side-wall sections and associated profile details are varied or generated as needed. Such a modification would not merely add a known connection detail; it would alter the way Liu achieves its stated modularity and commonality. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Liu based on teachings of Gong, because doing so would change the principle of operation of Liu's invention”
The office responds that the reference Gong is not used for teaching or modifying Liu into a parameterized side-wall segmentation, but used to teach a method of forming the side wall by connecting four side wall sections, as a method for manufacturing the side wall of Liu. In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that “Gong may improve design efficiency for generating three-dimensional models, but the Office Action does not explain why a skilled artisan seeking Liu's standardized, shared-profile vehicle body would abandon or complicate Liu's common side-wall architecture by adopting Gong's different parameterized side-wall design approach. Nor does the Office Action explain how the proposed modification would preserve Liu's intended cost-reduction and profile-sharing benefits. Because both Applicant's Specification and Liu recognize that unnecessary profile variation increases cost, a skilled artisan would have had a strong reason not to add structural variation unless the art provided a specific, articulated reason to do so. The Office Action's generalized statement that Gong's arrangement would provide rigidity is insufficient, because it does not address the cost, modularity, interchangeability, and shared-profile consequences of the proposed modification.”
The office responds that the reference Gong is used to teach a railway vehicle body manufacturing and assembly method, and is not an unnecessary profile variation that increases cost. Constructing a vehicle side wall by joining wall sections is well-known in the art, and the added benefit of providing rigidity is sufficient for this modification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights