DETAILED ACTION
Claims 22-34 are currently pending. New claims 33 and 34 are indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 22-32 are rejected despite Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 09/16/2026. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 22-27 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarnicki et al. (US 5,535,681).
Referring to Claim 22: Sarnicki discloses a method for a set of bridge plates, comprising:
attaching a first, left-aligned bridge plate (26, 28) to a right side of a gap between a first railcar (10) and a second railcar (10) by engaging a left-aligned pivot pin (88) protruding from a left edge of the first bridge plate with a second receiving port (22) of the first railcar and engaging a left-aligned locking pin (84) with a first receiving port (22) of the first railcar, the left-aligned pivot pin coupled within a left-aligned hollow guide tube (82) mounted on a first support bracket (Fig. 1); and
attaching a second, right-aligned bridge plate (26, 28) to a left side of the gap by engaging a right-aligned pivot pin (88) protruding from a right edge of the second bridge plate with a third receiving port (22) of the first railcar and engaging a right-aligned locking pin (84) with a fourth receiving port (22) of the first railcar, the right-aligned pivot pin coupled within a right-aligned hollow guide tube (82) mounted on a second support bracket (Fig. 1) (Col. 5, lines 25-32).
Referring to Claim 23: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising centering the first support bracket relative to a central axis (24) of the first bridge plate (26, 28) and off-setting the left-aligned guide tube (82) to a left of the central axis of the first bridge plate (Col. 5, lines 33-50) (Figs. 1 and 2), and
centering the second support bracket relative to a central axis (24) of the second bridge plate (26, 28) and off-setting the right-aligned guide tube (82) to a right of the central axis of the second bridge plate (Col. 5, lines 33-50) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 24: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising attaching the first bridge plate (26, 28) by sliding the left-aligned locking pin (84) along the hollow left-aligned guide tube (82) into a cavity of the first receiving port (22) via a first handle (90) coupled to the left-aligned locking pin within the left-aligned guide tube (Col. 5, lines 25-39) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 25: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising attaching the second bridge plate (26, 28) by sliding the right-aligned locking pin (84) along the hollow right-aligned guide tube (82) into another cavity of the third receiving port (22) via a second handle (90) coupled to the right-aligned locking pin within the right-aligned guide tube (Col. 5, lines 25-39) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 26: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising sliding the left-aligned locking pin (84) along a length of the first guide tube (82) by a first handle (90) protruding out of an opening (92) on the first guide tube and
sliding the right-aligned locking pin (84) along a length of the second guide tube (82) by a second handle (90) protruding out of an opening (92) on the second guide tube (Col. 5, lines 25-39) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 27: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 22, wherein attaching the first bridge plate (26, 28) to the right side of the gap and attaching the second bridge plate (26, 28) to the left side of the gap comprises attaching the first plate parallel to the second bridge plate (Col. 4, lines 40-48) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 30: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 22, wherein attaching the first bridge plate comprises:
retracting the left-aligned locking pin (84) into the left-aligned hollow guide tube (82) by actuating a first handle (90) coupled to the left-aligned locking pin in a direction toward the left-aligned pivot pin (Col. 5, lines 25-32) (Fig. 2);
engaging the left-aligned pivot pin (88) with the second receiving port (22) (Col. 5, lines 33-36) (Fig. 1); and
releasing the first handle to allow the left-aligned locking pin to extend into the first receiving port (Col. 5, lines 36-50) (Fig. 2), and
wherein attaching the second bridge plate comprises:
retracting the right-aligned locking pin (84) into the right-aligned hollow guide tube (82) by actuating a second handle (90) coupled to the right-aligned locking pin in a direction toward the right-aligned pivot pin (Col. 5, lines 25-32) (Fig. 2);
engaging the right-aligned pivot pin (88) with the third receiving port (22) (Col. 5, lines 33-36) (Fig. 1); and
releasing the second handle to allow the right-aligned locking pin to extend into the fourth receiving port (Col. 5, lines 36-50) (Fig. 2).
Referring to Claim 31: Sarnicki discloses the method of claim 30, wherein retracting the left-aligned locking pin (84) into the left-aligned hollow tube (82) comprises retracting the left-aligned locking pin against a first spring (86) disposed within the left-aligned hollow guide tube (82) disposed between the left-aligned locking pin (84) and the left-aligned pivot pin (88) (Col. 5, lines 25-39) (Fig. 2), and
wherein retracting the right-aligned locking pin (84) into the right-aligned hollow tube (82) comprises retracting the right-aligned locking pin against a second spring (86) disposed within the right-aligned hollow guide tube (82) disposed between the right-aligned locking pin (84) and the right-aligned pivot pin (88) (Col. 5, lines 25-39) (Fig. 2).
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) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnicki in view of Bullock et al. (US 5,515,792).
Referring to Claim 28: Sarnicki does not specifically teach a distance range between the bridge plates, including attaching the first bridge plate and attaching the second bridge plate creates a distance between an outer edge of the first bridge plate and an outer edge of the second bridge plate in a range of 86 inches to 92 inches. However, Bullock teaches that “[t]he problem with the present type of portable bridge plate is that its width is not sufficient to accommodate motor vehicles with narrow tracks now being used on some sub-compact and future motor vehicle designs. These motor vehicles' lateral wheel spacing is too narrow and cannot properly span the distance between the pair of portable bridge plates. Without extreme care, these motor vehicles may fall between the bridge plates spanning the gap between adjacent freight cars. Some motor vehicle manufacturers have advised that this track dimension will be reduced even further in the future.” (Col. 1, lines 47-57). Thus, Bullock teaches that it is known to vary the distance range between bridge plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sarnicki to create a distance between an outer edge of the first bridge plate and an outer edge of the second bridge plate in a range of 86 inches to 92 inches, since Bullock teaches that it is known to vary this distance, in order to accommodate vehicles with different wheelbase widths with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges 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).
Referring to Claim 29: Sarnicki does not teach a specific distance range between the bridge plates, including attaching the first bridge plate and attaching the second bridge plate creates a distance between an inner edge of the first bridge plate and an inner edge of the second bridge plate in a range of 41 inches to 47 inches. However, Bullock teaches that “[t]he problem with the present type of portable bridge plate is that its width is not sufficient to accommodate motor vehicles with narrow tracks now being used on some sub-compact and future motor vehicle designs. These motor vehicles' lateral wheel spacing is too narrow and cannot properly span the distance between the pair of portable bridge plates. Without extreme care, these motor vehicles may fall between the bridge plates spanning the gap between adjacent freight cars. Some motor vehicle manufacturers have advised that this track dimension will be reduced even further in the future.” (Col. 1, lines 47-57). Thus, Bullock teaches that it is known to vary the distance range between bridge plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sarnicki to create a distance between an inner edge of the first bridge plate and an inner edge of the second bridge plate in a range of 41 inches to 47 inches, since Bullock teaches that it is known to vary this distance, in order to accommodate vehicles with different wheelbase widths with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges 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).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnicki in view of Bell et al. (US 4,721,426).
Referring to Claim 32: Sarnicki does not specifically teach placing a second end of the bridge plates onto the deck of the second railcar. However, Bell teaches a bridge plate, wherein “[t]he opposite end of the bridge plate is tapered at 10T to a narrowed platform portion 10P which will rest on the end of another car and thus bridge the space between the two cars.” (Col. 1, lines 51-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sarnicki to place a second end of the bridge plates onto the deck of the second railcar, as taught by Bell, in order to quickly assemble the bridge plates, without connecting the bridge plates to the second car via a pin assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33 and 34 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:
Regarding claim 33, the prior art fails to teach color coding the left and right aligned bridge plates. While color coding is a known technique, Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Sarnicki in this specific manner regarding left and right alignment of the bridge plates.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art, including Sarnicki, fails to teach that “a surface of the first support bracket is curved to align with a curvature of the lower surface of the first bridge plate, and wherein a surface of the second support bracket is curved to align with a curvature of the lower surface of the second bridge plate.” Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Sarnicki in this specific manner regarding the curvature of the support bracket and bridge plate.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 22, Applicant argues that none of the elements cited in Fig. 1 of Sarnicki in the Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection correspond to the claimed first and second support brackets, and that claim 22 specifically recites that the hollow guide tubes are attached to support brackets which are separate and distinct from the bridge plates. Examiner responds that there is no such specific recitation of “separate and distinct” support brackets. Applicant is making arguments more specific than what is recited within claim 22. Further, Sarnicki does not use separate reference numbers for the hollow guide tube and the support bracket. Rather, Sarnicki uses “sleeve 70” and “sleeve 82” to refer to the component that serves as both the hollow guide tube and the support bracket (page 5, lines 13-29) (compare Fig. 2 of Sarnicki with Fig. 3 of the instant application). While one reference number is used in Sarnicki, there are clearly different portions of sleeves 70 and 82 which serve the functions of the hollow guide tube and the support bracket, the hollow guide tube being inside of the rectangular support bracket (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3 below). The arrangement of Sarnicki’s hollow guide tube portion inside the support bracket portion may be reasonably interpreted as a mounting. Further still, Sarnicki’s sleeves (70, 82), which are being interpreted as forming the claimed support brackets, are depicted as separate and distinct components attached to the bridge plates (26, 28) via some type of unlabeled cylindrical fastener (Fig. 2). Alternatively, Examiner notes that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Applicant argues that Bullock fails to cure the deficiencies of Sarnicki because Bullock also teaches that the hollow guide tube is directly connected to the plate members and not to any support bracket, as recited in the claim. Examiner responds that Sarnicki’s mounting of the hollow guide tube on the support bracket is not deficient, as explained above regarding claim 22. Bullock is not being used to modify the hollow guide tube mounting. Rather, Bullock is being used to teach varying the distance range between bridge plates.
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 ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
