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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-17 are currently amended. Claims 18-20 are newly added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on was filed 15 February 2024 before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the edge profiles" in line 8 and “the base layer” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the edge profiles" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the base layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the base layer" in lines 4, 6-7 and “the hard layer plates” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 5-6, and 14-15 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected base claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the base layer" in lines 3 and 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the top and base layers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the structural foam is PET foam, the balsa wood is a balsa wood end grain board.” It is unclear whether the core layer requires structural foam or balsa wood. The structural foam and balsa wood receive their antecedent basis from claim 1, which lists structural foam and balsa wood as alternatives. Claim 18 is not written in the alternative, thus it is unclear what is and isn’t required by the claim limitations. For the purposes of examination, claim 18 will be interpreted as being written in the alternative to require either “wherein the structural foam is PET foam” or “the balsa wood is a balsa wood end grain board.”
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) 1-3, 7-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 105926835 B) in view of Cecchi (US 20180215398 A1), Gastou (EP 0628670 A1), Bauer (US 4973506 A), and Locher (US 20110049935 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Zhang teaches a Fire-protected see machine translation, para. [0030], “steel”) top layer (4) and a metallic (para. [0030], “steel”) base layer (1) and a core layer (3) lying therebetween as well as metallic edge profiles (2), wherein the edge profiles are configured in such a way that the core layer is completely enclosed by the metallic top and base layers and the edge profiles (as seen in Fig. 1), and
Zhang does not teach wherein the sandwich plate is a floor structure of a wagon body.
Cecchi teaches a fire-protected floor structure (1) (Fig. 1) of a wagon body (para. [0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-protected structure of Zhang to include being utilized in the floor structure of a wagon body as taught by Cecchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing a wagon’s underframe’s resistance to fire (see Cecchi, para. [0002]).
Zhang does not teach a mineral coolant layer on the side of the base layer facing away from the core layer.
Gastou teaches a mineral coolant (see machine translation, para. [0027], lines 4-5) layer (4) on the side of the base layer (5) facing away from the core layer (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sandwich plate of Zhang to include a mineral coolant layer on the side of the base layer facing away from the core layer as taught by Gastou with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing protection of the sandwich plate (see Gastou, para. [0035]).
Zhang does not teach the side of the mineral coolant layer facing away from the core layer is covered with an intumescent layer.
Bauer teaches an intumescent layer (12) as an outer layer (as seen in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sandwich plate of Zhang to include an intumescent layer on a side of a mineral coolant layer facing away from the core layer, thus being an outer layer (as seen in Fig. 1 of the current invention) as taught by Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the fire resistance of the sandwich plate (see Bauer, col. 4, lines 42-45).
Zhang does not teach wherein the core layer is made of a structural foam, or of balsa wood, or contains at least 95% by weight of PET or balsa wood.
Locher teaches wherein the core layer is made of balsa wood (para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sandwich plate of Zhang to include the core layer being made of balsa wood as taught by Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing costs (see Locher, para. [0054], lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the metallic top and base layers as well as the edge profiles of the sandwich plate are
Zhang does not explicitly teach the metallic top and base layers, as well as the edge profiles being made of aluminum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the metallic top and base layers, as well as the edge profiles being made of aluminum with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing costs and weight, 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.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the mineral coolant layer is bonded over the entire surface of the base layer (Gastou, as seen in Fig. 2) with a two-component polyurethane adhesive (Zhang, para. [0034], lines 5-9, “polyurethane adhesive”).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the mineral coolant layer is made of a layer made of cement-bonded calcium silicate (Gastou, para. [0021], lines 9-10).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 7, wherein the mineral coolant layer is
Zhang does not explicitly teach a mineral coolant layer being 1-3 mm thick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the mineral coolant layer being 1-3 mm thick with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the amount of material needed and thus reduce costs, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the intumescent layer is made of an intumescent fleece, wherein the fleece is made of silicate fibers (Bauer, col. 4, lines 42-45, “sodium silicate”).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 9, wherein the intumescent layer is 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm thick (Bauer, col. 4, lines 36-37, “2 to 6 mm”).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the floor structure has a
While Zhang does not explicitly teach a substantially rectangular structure with a width expediently between 1.5 m and 4 m, and a length expediently between 6 m and 25 m, Zhang does teach the structure being processed into the required size and thickness (Zhang, para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the floor structure being a substantially rectangular structure in top view with a width between 1.5-4 m and a length between 6-25m with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring the floor structure fits in any given wagon, since it has been held the 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). Furthermore, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the floor structure is configured to be self-supporting (Zhang, para. [0004], lines 3-4), wherein the
Zhang does not explicitly teach the sandwich plate being 30-80 mm thick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sandwich plate being 30-80 mm thick with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of optimizing the amount of material needed, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the top and base layers of the sandwich have
Zhang does not explicitly teach the top and base layers of the sandwich have a thickness of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the top and base layers of the sandwich having a thickness of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of optimizing the amount of material needed, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the floor structure is attached to walls (Cecchi, para. [0013]) of the wagon body via the edge profiles of the sandwich plate by means of fixing means (5) (Zhang, Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the wagon body is a wagon body for road or rail vehicles (Cecchi, para. [0013]).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the structural foam is PET foam, the balsa wood is a balsa wood end grain board (Locher, as seen in Fig. 3, the grains of the balsa wood 132 are pictured).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 11, wherein the
Zhang does not explicitly teach the floor structure having a width between 2-3 m and a length between 10-20 m.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the floor structure having a width between 2-3 m and a length between 10-20 m with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of optimizing the amount of material needed, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 12, wherein
Zhang does not explicitly teach the thickness of the sandwich plate being 50-70 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the thickness of the sandwich plate being 50-70 mm with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of optimizing the amount of material needed, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 4, the combination of Zhang as modified by Cecchi, Gastou, Bauer, and Locher above teaches the Fire-protected floor structure according to claim 1, wherein the floor structure contains
Zhang does not teach wherein the floor structure contains connecting profiles arranged on the side of the base layer facing away from the core layer, wherein the floor structure has intumescent hard layer plates on the side of the base layer facing away from the core layer in areas for attaching the connecting plates, wherein an inner area on the side of the hard layer plates facing away from the sandwich plate has an intumescent adhesive layer area in each case and the side of the mineral coolant layer facing away from the core layer as well as at least one edge area of the areas of the hard layer plates not covered with the intumescent adhesive are covered with the intumescent layer and the connecting profiles are bonded in an inner area on the side of the intumescent adhesive layer areas facing away from the core layer.
Ristow (DE 19806484 A1) teaches wherein the floor structure contains connecting profiles (20-23) (Fig. 1) arranged on the side of the base layer facing away from the core layer (as seen in Fig. 1). However, Ristow does not teach the remaining limitations of claim 4.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floor structure of Zhang to include wherein the floor structure has intumescent hard layer plates on the side of the base layer facing away from the core layer in areas for attaching the connecting plates, wherein an inner area on the side of the hard layer plates facing away from the sandwich plate has an intumescent adhesive layer area in each case and the side of the mineral coolant layer facing away from the core layer as well as at least one edge area of the areas of the hard layer plates not covered with the intumescent adhesive are covered with the intumescent layer and the connecting profiles are bonded in an inner area on the side of the intumescent adhesive layer areas facing away from the core layer. The modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require a complete redesign of Zhang as well as improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 4 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record, but is still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above. Claims 5-6 and 14-16 are also non-obvious in view of the prior art of record due to being dependent upon claim 4, but are also still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 213774300 U) discloses a ground insulating structure of a building.
Okazaki (JP 2020066893 A) discloses a fireproof structure.
Adler (WO 2020011721 A1) discloses a floor structure for a vehicle, method for assembly a floor structure, and rail vehicle having at least one floor structure.
Guo (CN 110641491 A) discloses a rail vehicle bottom frame fireproof floor board structure.
Zoitos (US 20190352515 A1) discloses a fire protective composition.
R&M International (DE 202017102867 U) discloses a floating fire protection floor, especially for a Ship’s Deck.
Xiao (CN 104652632 B) discloses a colour steel sandwich fireproof insulating board.
Liu (CN 102261143 B) discloses a manufacturing method of colour pressure steel plate foam cement.
Xu (CN 202298992 U) discloses an A-level fireproofing, energy saving heat preservation wall plate.
Delahaye (WO 2008135190 A1) discloses a fire barrier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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 Morano can be reached at (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 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights