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 first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-18 and 20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under provisional Application No. 63/462,653, filed on 04/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/17/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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 16-17 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.
Claim 16 recites “said centerline” in line 2. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes “said centerline” has been construed as “said longitudinal centerline”, as recited in claim 14.
Claim 17 recites “said centerline” in line 2. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes “said centerline” has been construed as “a centerline”.
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) 1-7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der (US 3626464 A), in view of Black (US 20210300442 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Der teaches (Fig. 1-3): A railroad car floor assembly (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a floor sheet (subflooring 36) having a length and a width; an array of cross-members (crossbearers 8); and a set of stringers (hat-section ducts 22)(Figs. 2); said set of stringers (22) being oriented to run lengthwise relative to said floor sheet (36)(Fig. 2-3); said set of cross-members (8) being oriented to run cross-wise relative to said floor sheet (36)(Fig. 2-3); the floor sheet (36) having an upper surface (Fig. 3); and the cross-members (8) having accommodations (cutouts 20) formed therein through which the stringers (22) pass uninterrupted (Fig. 3).
Van Der does not explicitly teach that the railroad car is a box car with the floor sheet defining a lading surface.
However, Black teaches an alternate railroad car floor assembly, wherein (Fig. 2): the railroad car is a box car (20) with the floor sheet (80) defining a lading surface (Fig. 2), and an array of cross-members (42); and a set of stringers (70); said set of stringers (70) being oriented to run lengthwise relative to said floor sheet (80).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Van Der to utilize the cross-members and a set of stringers supporting a subflooring as the main lading support surface on a box car, as disclosed by Black, with a reasonable expectation of success because boxcars often transport large heavy loads, which can benefit from the cross-members handling lateral stability, and the stringers running lengthwise to spread localized loads evenly across the entire frame. Using the subflooring as the main lading support surface would maximize internal storage space for lading, providing transport efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the floor sheet (36) defines the upper flange of said array of cross-members (8)(col. 1, lines 53-56; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): said floor sheet (36) defines the upper flange of the stringers of said set of stringers (22)(col. 1, lines 48-53; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): said floor sheet (36) defines the upper flange of said array of cross-members (8); and said floor sheet defines the upper flange of the stringers of said set of stringers (22)(col. 1, lines 48-56; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): said car floor assembly includes a straight-through center sill (center sill 4) and said floor sheet (36) defines a center sill cover plate of said center sill (4)(the subflooring 36 covers at least the bottom portion of the center sill 4; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): said floor sheet (36) defines the upper flange of said array of cross-members (8)(Fig. 3); and said floor sheet (36) defines the upper flange of the stringers (22) of said set of stringers (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Van Der does not explicitly describe the floor sheet (36) as a non-nailable floor sheet.
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 subfloor sheet to be a material that cannot be penetrated by standard nails, such as steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07. Manufacturing the vehicle floor sheet with steel would provide increased durability and load capacity, since steel is a material with high strength-to-weight ratio and reliable performance under extreme stress.
Regarding claim 20, Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): A railroad car floor assembly, said floor assembly including: a floor sheet (36) having a lengthwise direction and a transverse direction (Fig. 3); an array of cross-members (8), said cross-members being mounted to extend in said transverse direction (Fig. 1); an array of stringers (22) mounted to said cross-members (Fig. 2-3), said stringers (22) being mounted to run in said lengthwise direction (Fig. 2-3); said floor sheet (36) having an upward facing lading supporting surface (Fig. 3); said floor sheet (36) defining an uppermost flange of said cross-members (8); and said floor sheet (36) defining an uppermost flange of said stringers (22)(Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 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 claims and if all rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to teach said floor assembly has laterally outboard margins and has tie-down fittings mounted along said laterally outboard margins; said floor assembly has reinforcement rails mounted along said laterally outboard margins to which said tie down fittings are mounted; and said cross-members have webs that are located underneath said floor sheet and said cross-member webs have notches formed therein, said reinforcement rails being mounted in said notches. While Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): said floor assembly has laterally outboard margins (Fig. 2); and said cross-members (8) have webs (upright web 14) that are located underneath said floor sheet (36), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Van Der such that the floor assembly has reinforcement rails mounted along said laterally outboard margins to which said tie down fittings are mounted, and further modify the cross-member webs to have notches formed therein, wherein said reinforcement rails being mounted in said notches. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 9 and its depending claim(s) 10-16, the prior art fails to teach said set of cross-members includes a first cross-bearer, said first cross-bearer having a first web and a second web, said first and second webs being spaced apart; said first and second webs of said first cross-bearer having upper edges welded to an underside of said floor sheet; said set of stringers including a first stringer; said first stringer is a first channel having a first leg, a second leg and a back joining said first and second legs; and said legs of said channel being welded toes-in to the underside of said floor sheet. While Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): said set of cross-members (8) includes a first cross-bearer (8), said first cross-bearer having a first web (upright web 14); and set of stringers (22) including a first stringer (22); said first stringer is a first channel having a first leg (26), a second leg (26) and a back (32) joining said first and second legs (Fig. 3), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Van Der’s cross-members to have a second web spaced apart from the first web, wherein said first and second webs have upper edges welded to an underside of said floor sheet. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 17 and its depending claim(s) 18, the prior art fails to teach said floor assembly has a marginal edge most laterally distant from said centerline, and a reinforcement channel defined along said marginal edge; and tie-down fittings are mounted in said reinforcement channel. While Van Der further teaches (Fig. 1-3): floor assembly has a marginal edge most laterally distant from a centerline (Fig. 2), and a reinforcement channel (side sill 10) defined along said marginal edge (Fig. 2), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Van Der’s side sill 10 to become a reinforcement channel with tie-down fittings mounted within. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that while another reference Hodges (US 0468176 A) teaches an alternate box railroad car having (Fig. 1-3): two channel bars (A) that may be interpreted as a reinforcement channel defined along a marginal edge, the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the channel bars to have tie-down fittings mounted within. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a railroad boxcar floor structure with cross-beams and stringers: US-0468176-A, US-0669797-A, US-2575454-A, US-4357048-A, US-4662650-A, US-5309845-A, US-10471974-B2, US-20230159066-A1, WO 2011038755 A1, EP 0962373 A1, AT 523179 A4, EP 3348455 A1, CN 104554442 A, WO 2007038810 A1, WO 9808725 A1, FR 2334552 A1.
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