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 .
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.
Claim(s) 12-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trommeshaus et al. (EP 3369638 A1, herein after referred to as Trommenshaus) in view of Goerres (EP 0671307 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Trommenshaus teaches a large component for a rail vehicle (title), comprising: a grid-like structure of bows and ribs (FIG. 1: depicted with bows 3 and ribs 4); and a paneling formed from said grid-like structure (FIG. 1: 11); wherein the ribs are formed as planar sheet metal parts which are butt- welded to the paneling (FIG. 6: planar sheet construction depicted, butt welds 14), and the bows are formed as planar sheet metal parts which are butt-welded to the paneling (FIG. 4: planar sheet construction depicted, butt welds 14); and wherein a rail is arranged on at least one of bow of the grid-like structure of bows (FIG. 3A-4: 23). However, Trommenshaus does not explicitly teach that said rail is a c-rail.
However, Goerres does teach the use of c-rails (FIG. 1: 8 & 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the c-rail shape of Goerres for the rail of Trommenshaus for simplified manufacturing of a rail as Trommenshaus shows he ability to use a variety of rail shapes (FIG. 3A-3E).
Regarding claim 13 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches said C-rail arranged on the at least one bow (result of the above combination); wherein the C-rail is formed as a roll-profiled part (Goerres, FIG. 1: depicted roll-profiled with rolls 9) which is butt-welded to the bow (Trommenshaus, FIG. 4: welded at 14).
Regarding claims 14 & 15 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches that the ribs have an outer contour which allows the C-rail to be mounted on the ribs in an assembly position (Trommenshaus, FIG. 7: notch 7 which faces towards the outside of the rail vehicle).
Regarding claim 16 Trommenshaus as modified above does not explicitly teach that the C- rail is welded to the ribs at at least one point. However, Trommenshaus does teach welding the rails (Trommenshaus, FIG. 4: 14), so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively welded them to the ribs to more securely attach them to the ribs and increase the rigidity of the large component.
Regarding claims 17-19 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches that the large component is formed as a side wall, end wall, or roof (Trommenshaus, abstract).
Regarding claim 20 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches that the paneling is constructed from a plurality of metal sheets having different material compositions or thicknesses (Trommenshaus, FIG. 4: depicted with various thicknesses of sheet metal).
Regarding claim 21 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches that the bows, ribs, paneling and the C-rail are welded via a laser welding method (Trommenshaus translation page 3 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 22 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches that the bows, ribs, paneling and the C-rail are manufactured from corrosion-resistant steel or non- corrosion-resistant steel (Trommenshaus ranslation page 4 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 23 Trommenshaus as modified above teaches that the large component is fitted with a window frame (Trommenshaus, FIG. 10: 26 & 27) and a C-rail is arranged below the window frame (Trommenshaus, FIG. 10: depicted); but does not explicitly teach wherein water inlet holes and water outlet holes are introduced into the C-rail. However, Trommenshaus does teach the use of holes through components (FIG. 10: depicted in 19 & 20) which would be suitable for water to flow in and out through. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the holes of Trommenshaus in the c-rail in order to reduce weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument that a C shape rail would be too weak to fulfill the task is not persuasive because there is no reason not to make the rails too small/thin to function. It is no more difficult to make a C shaped member suitably strong than it is for an O shaped one. None of the prior art relied upon teaches a specific strength so it would require no more experimentation to use the modified Trommeshaus in view of Goerres than the unmodified Trommeshaus.
The argument that a chord-stringer design is practically mandatory is not a persuasive reason to allow the claims because nothing in the claims seems to be at odds with this. Furthermore it is argued that Trommeshaus and Goerres do not teach wall segments but this is also not relevant to the claims as they currently stand; it is claimed that “a paneling is formed” and Trommeshaus FIG. 1 shows a panel and Goerres FIG. 2 also shows a panel. It is not clear from the arguments how the instant invention defines over the prior art and a more thorough explanation, possibly supported by amendments to the claims, may be needed.
The argument that the instant invention has advantages that facilitate laser welding is not persuasive because this is not claimed. The instant invention probably does facilitate laser welding but the structure which facilitates this and that the prior art lacks must be claimed in order to distinguish over the prior art. Applicant must point out what claimed limitations are not present in the prior art in order for the argument to be persuasive. It is only claimed that the components be butt-welded and the prior art teaches that.
The argument that the instant invention is easy to rust proof is also not persuasive not because the instant invention is not easier to rust proof than the prior art (this may be true but has not been examined) but because this does not pertain to any specific claimed limitation not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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 J Morano IV can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights