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 § 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 14 and 20 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 14 is indefinite because it is not clear whether “the plurality of connectors” are the same connectors set forth in claim 1 such that the connectors of claim 1 connect both as recited or the connectors of claim 14 are a subset of those of claim 1 and thus structurally separate from those.
Claim 20 is indefinite because “the railroad car roof panel” lacks antecedent basis to the extent that only a first panel and second panel are previously recited. Therefore, the antecedent basis for “the panel” is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2050275 to Panagin in view of US 2302949 to Palmer.
Regarding claim 1, Panagin discloses a railroad car comprising (e.g. see Fig. 1): a frame 16; spaced apart trucks 14 that support the frame; a plurality of wheels that support the trucks (as evident from Fig. 1); first and second side walls 18 connected to and supported by the frame; first and second end walls 20 connected to and supported by the frame; and a roof (top of structure as shown in Fig. 4) connected to and supported by the first and second side walls, the first and second end walls, and the frame (e.g. as evident from Fig. 4). Panagin discloses a corrugated roof structure but not as recited therein.
Palmer discloses a corrugated supporting structure (i.e. a roof as disclosed in pg 1, left col., ln 22) including a first roof panel and a second roof panel (e.g. see Fig. 10 with each panel defined as follows),
each of the first roof panel and the second roof panel comprising:
a backer sheet 1 ‘’’ including a central section (as evident from Fig. 10),
a first connector leg 3’’’ connected to and extending from a first end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10), and
a second connector leg 2’’’ connected to and extending from a second end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10),
a corrugated panel 7 including a central section (as evident from Fig. 10), a first connector arm 5’’’ connected to and extending from a first end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10), and a second connector arm 4’’’ (as evident from Fig. 10) connected to and extending from a second end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10), and
a plurality of connectors that connect a first surface of the backer sheet to the corrugated panel (e.g. see pg 2, right col. ln 63-68),
wherein the first connector leg of the first roof panel and the second connector leg of the second roof panel engage and form a first seal between the first and second roof panels (as evident from Fig. 10 as found in the overlapping areas of the panels in the middle of Fig. 10), and
the first connector arm of the first roof panel and the second connector arm of the second roof panel engage and form a second seal between the first and second roof panels (as evident from Fig. 10 as found in the overlapping areas of the panels in the middle of Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 2, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 1, wherein the first connector leg 3’’’ comprises a first extension section and a first sealer connected to and extending from an end of the first extension section,
wherein the second connector leg 2’’’ comprises a second extension section and a second sealer connected to and extending from a second end of the second extension section, and
wherein the first sealer protrudes towards the corrugated panel and the second sealer protrudes away from the corrugated panel (e.g. see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 3, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 2, wherein the first and second sealers comprise respective deformations of the first connector leg and the second connector leg (as evident from Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 4, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 3, wherein the first and second sealers each comprise a rolled edge or crimped edge of the backer sheet (as evident from Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 5, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 2 wherein a lower surface of the second sealer of the second roof panel abuts an upper surface of the first connector leg of the first roof panel to form the first seal between the first and second roof panels (as evident from Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 6, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 5 wherein a lower surface of the second connector arm of the second roof panel abuts an upper surface of the first connector arm of the first roof panel to form the second seal between the first and second roof panels (as evident from Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 9, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 1 wherein the corrugated panel includes a plurality of corrugations having respective troughs and peaks, the first and second connector arms are formed from respective end troughs (i.e. 4’’’ and 5’’’ extend from the ends of troughs as evident from Fig. 10) of the corrugated panel that are not connected to the backer sheet by the plurality of connectors (as evident from Fig. 10 due to the spacing between the arms from the backer sheet), and the central section of the corrugated panel comprises troughs that are connected to the backer sheet by the plurality of connectors (e.g. see Fig. 1, 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 10, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 9 wherein the first connector arm comprises a first end trough of the corrugated panel and a retaining finger (i.e. wherein the finger is the portion that extends back toward the backer sheet), and wherein the second connector arm comprises a second end trough of the corrugated panel (as evident from Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 11, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 10 wherein the retaining finger comprises a portion of a downward transition of the corrugated panel (as evident from Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 12, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 10 wherein the second connector arm comprises at least a portion of a second end trough of the corrugated panel and an adjacent downward transition of the corrugated panel (as evident from Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 13, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 10 wherein the backer sheet is a bottom backer sheet and the first surface is an upper surface of the bottom backer sheet, the central section of the corrugated panel includes a plurality of corrugations having respective troughs and peaks, and the plurality of connectors connect the upper surface of the bottom backer sheet to the troughs of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10; also see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 14, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 13 wherein each of the first roof panel and the second roof panel further comprises an upper backer sheet, and the plurality of connectors connect a lower surface of the upper backer sheet to the peaks of the corrugated panel (e.g. see Fig. 8 including upper backer sheet 12, 14, 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 16, Panagin discloses a railroad car comprising (e.g. see Fig. 1): a frame 16; spaced apart trucks 14 that support the frame; a plurality of wheels that support the trucks (as evident from Fig. 1); first and second side walls 18 connected to and supported by the frame; first and second end walls 20 connected to and supported by the frame; and a roof (top of structure as shown in Fig. 4) connected to and supported by the first and second side walls, the first and second end walls, and the frame (e.g. as evident from Fig. 4). Panagin discloses a corrugated roof structure but not as recited therein.
Palmer discloses a corrugated supporting structure (i.e. a roof as disclosed in pg 1, left col., ln 22) including a first roof panel and a second roof panel (e.g. see Fig. 10 with each panel defined as follows),
each of the first roof panel and the second roof panel comprising:
a backer sheet 1 ‘’’ including a central section (as evident from Fig. 10),
a first connector leg 3’’’ connected to and extending from a first end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10), and
a second connector leg 2’’’ connected to and extending from a second end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10),
a corrugated panel 7 including a central section (as evident from Fig. 10), a first connector arm 5’’’ connected to and extending from a first end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10), and a second connector arm 4’’’ (as evident from Fig. 10) connected to and extending from a second end of the central section (as evident from Fig. 10), and
a plurality of connectors that connect a first surface of the backer sheet to the corrugated panel (e.g. see pg 2, right col. ln 63-68),
wherein the first connector arm and the first connector leg of the first roof panel applies a first engagement force to the second connector leg of the second roof panel when the second connector leg of the second roof panel is inserted between the first connector arm and the first connector leg of the first roof panel (i.e. as such would be consistent with the configuration of Fig. 4), and
wherein the second connector arm and the second connector leg of the second roof panel applies a second engagement force to the first connector arm of the first roof panel when the first connector arm of the first roof panel is inserted between the second connector arm and the second connector leg of the second roof panel (i.e. as such would be consistent with the configuration of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 17, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 16 wherein the first engagement force is a clamping force that forms a first seal between a lower surface of the second connector leg of the second roof panel and an upper surface of the first connector leg of the first roof panel (i.e. as such would be consistent with the configuration of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 18, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 17, wherein the second engagement force is a clamping force that forms a second seal between a lower surface of the second connector arm of the second roof panel and an upper surface of the first connector arm of the first roof panel (i.e. as such would be consistent with the configuration of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 19, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 18 wherein the first engagement force also forms (1) a third seal between an upper surface of the first connector leg of the first roof panel and a lower surface of the second connector leg of the second roof panel, and (2) a fourth seal between a lower surface of the first connector arm of the first roof panel and an upper surface of the second connector leg of the second roof panel (i.e. as such would be consistent with the configuration of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Regarding claim 20, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 16, wherein one or more of the first connector arm, the second connector arm, the first connector leg, and the second connector leg are deformed to cause a respective bias that increases one or both of the first engagement force and the second engagement force (i.e. as such would be consistent with the configuration of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panagin in view of Palmer in further view of US 3534463 to Molin et al.
Regarding claim 15, Panagin in view of Palmer discloses the railroad car of claim 1 wherein the backer sheet is a lower backer sheet and the first surface of the lower backer sheet is a lower surface, the central section of the corrugated panel includes a plurality of corrugations having respective troughs and peaks; and the plurality of connectors connect the lower surface of the upper backer sheet to troughs of the corrugated panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a substitution of one known element (the structure of Palmer) for another (the roof of Panagin) because such provides “an effective and substantially weather-tight interlock of adjacent panels” (Panagin: pg 1, left col, ln 20-28) to one of ordinary skill in the art of corrugated roofing. Palmer does not disclose that the lower backer sheet is atop the corrugated shaping and the peaks are connected to the bottom of the backer sheet. Molin discloses various orientations and configurations of backer sheets with respect to the troughs and peaks of corrugated panels (see sheet 1 of Molin). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to re-orient the paneling of Palmer with the motivation of providing a smooth exterior surface to avoid providing a collection area for debris and thus a smooth run-off surface for debris.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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 claimed subject matter is not taught by the cited art especially due to the spacing between the arms and legs. Further, such would not be an obvious modification to make.
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 SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights