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 . 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.
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, 2, 10-13, 26, 31, 32 and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2016/0001789 A1) in view of Veit-Salomon et al. (US 6,224,144).
Referring to Claim 1: Kato teaches a panel (21) for a side wall assembly of a light mass transit vehicle (1), comprising:
a first side portion (right side of panel 21) (Fig. 2)
a second side portion (left side of panel 21) (Fig. 2)
a top portion (21e) separating the first and second side portions and comprising a plurality of protrusions (60) configured to interlock with a roof (4) support member (6) of the vehicle (Figs. 3 and 7), each protrusion extending substantially from the first side portion to the second side portion (Para. [0030]) (Fig. 7); and
a bottom portion (21c) configured to connect to a base support member (5) of the vehicle (Para. [0030]) (Fig. 3).
As noted by strikethrough above, Kato does not specifically teach that the first and second side portions of the panel comprise one or more connecting members. However, Veit-Salomon teaches a railcar body framework, wherein the first and second side portions (10) of the panels (8) comprise one or more connecting members (Fig. 5) (Col. 3, lines 5-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kato to secure the first and second side portions of the panel using connecting members, as taught by Veit-Salomon, in order to provide enhanced security of the panels to the vehicle frame with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Kato does not specifically teach that the connecting members are configured to connect to attachment members of a support rib. However, Veit-Salomon teaches a railcar body framework, wherein the connecting members (10) are configured to connect to attachment members (9) of a support rib (6) (Figs. 2 and 5) (Col. 3, lines 21-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kato to secure the first and second side portions of the panel to a support rib, as taught by Veit-Salomon, in order to provide enhanced security of the panels to the vehicle frame with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Kato further teaches the panel, wherein the plurality of protrusions (60) originate from a common plane (21e) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 11: Kato further teaches the panel, wherein the top portion further comprises one or more apertures (21f) for fixing means (60a) for the roof support member (6) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 12: Kato further teaches the panel, wherein a centre axis of at least one of the one or more apertures (21f) runs through at least one of the plurality of protrusions (60) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 13: Kato further teaches the panel, wherein the bottom portion (21c) further comprises one or more apertures (21f) for fixing means for the base support member (5) (Para. [0030]).
Referring to Claim 26: Kato teaches a cantrail (6) for a light mass transit vehicle (1), a first portion of the cantrail comprising a plurality of recesses (44a) or protrusions for engaging a plurality of protrusions (60) or recesses respectively on a side wall assembly (Para. [0037]) (Fig. 7), each recess or protrusion extending a length of the cantrail (Fig. 2), wherein two or more of the cantrail recesses or protrusions are connected to internal support ribs of the cantrail such that a stress force acting at the first portion of the cantrail is dispersed to a second portion of the cantrail (see annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that stress force acting on one side of the cantrail of Kato will inherently be dispersed to the other side (although the amount of stress may be small).
Referring to Claim 31: Kato further teaches the cantrail, further comprising a plurality of internal chambers defined by the support ribs (see annotated Fig. 7 above where the support ribs create two interconnected internal chambers along a length of the cantrail).
Referring to Claim 32: Kato further teaches the cantrail, the cantrail (6) being formed of a metal (“aluminum”) (Para. [0031], last sentence) or fibre-reinforced composite.
Referring to Claim 37: Kato further teaches a body for a light mass transit vehicle (1), including:
at least one panel (21) for a side wall assembly of a light mass transit vehicle, the or each panel comprising:
a first side portion (right side of panel 21) (Fig. 2)
a second side portion (left side of panel 21) (Fig. 2)
a top portion (21e) separating the first and second side portions and comprising a plurality of protrusions (60) or recesses configured to interlock with a roof (4) support member (6) of the vehicle (Figs. 3 and 7), each protrusion or recess extending substantially from the first side portion to the second side portion (Para. [0030]) (Fig. 7); and
a bottom portion (21c) configured to connect to a base support member (5) of the vehicle (Para. [0030]) (Fig. 3); and further including
at least one cantrail (6) for a light mass transit vehicle (Para. [0031]), a first portion of the cantrail comprising a plurality of recesses (44a) or protrusions for engaging a plurality of protrusions (60) or recesses respectively on the side wall assembly (Para. [0037]) (Fig. 7), each recess or protrusion extending a length of the cantrail (Fig. 2), wherein two or more of the cantrail recesses or protrusions are connected to internal support ribs of the cantrail such that a stress force acting at the first portion of the cantrail is dispersed to a second portion of the cantrail (see annotated Fig. 7 above), wherein the cantrail (6) is the roof (4) support member and is configured to interlock the or each panel (21) via complementary protrusions or recesses (Figs. 1 and 7) (Para. [0024]).
As noted by strikethrough above, Kato does not specifically teach that the first and second side portions of the panel comprise one or more connecting members. However, Veit-Salomon teaches a railcar body framework, wherein the first and second side portions (10) of the panels (8) comprise one or more connecting members (Fig. 5) (Col. 3, lines 5-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kato to secure the first and second side portions of the panel using connecting members, as taught by Veit-Salomon, in order to provide enhanced security of the panels to the vehicle frame with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 38: Kato does not specifically teach a support rib including a top portion, the top portion including the protrusions or recesses and configured to interlock with the at least one cantrail. However, Veit-Salomon teaches a railcar body framework, wherein the connecting members (10) are configured to connect to attachment members (9) of a support rib (6) (Figs. 2 and 5) (Col. 3, lines 21-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kato to use support ribs interlocked with the cantrail, as taught by Veit-Salomon, in order to provide enhanced security of the panels to the vehicle frame with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 39: Kato further teaches a light mass transit vehicle including the body of claim 37 (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Veit-Salomon and Blest et al. (US 2,120,542).
Referring to Claim 14: Kato does not specifically teach that three or more of the one or more apertures are arranged in a line at a 35 to 55 degree angle to the vertical. However, Blest teaches a car construction, wherein the side wall assembly has apertures along the bottom portion (10) arranged in a triangular configuration (see annotated Fig. 1 below where the triangular configuration of Blest creates an oblique angle to the vertical). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kato to use a triangular configuration of apertures, as taught by Blest, creating apertures arranged in a line at a 35 to 55 degree angle to the vertical, in order to provide enhanced security of the panels to the vehicle frame using a strong triangular shape 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
96
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 18, 19, 22, 27-29 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 3, the prior art, including Kato fail to teach that “the one or more connecting members of the first side portion are three or more connecting members and are spaced in three distinct groups.” Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this specific manner.
Regarding claim 4 and depending claims 5 and 7, the prior art, including Kato, fails to teach that “the one or more connecting members of the second side portion are three or more connecting members and are spaced in three distinct groups,” as recited in claim 4. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this specific manner.
Regarding claim 18 and depending claims 19 and 22, the prior art, including Kato, fails to teach all the limitations of the support rib, as recited in claim 18. While vertical support ribs in railcar framing have long been known in the art (e.g., Roebling (US 0,030,426), Brown (US 0,882,927), Blest (US 2,120,542) and more recently Streiff et al. (US 2003/0034671 or US 6,695,389)), the claimed arrangement of the first and second side portions with attachment members and the top and bottom portions and configured to connect two of the panels of claim 1 is found to be non-obvious. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this specific manner.
Regarding claim 27 and depending claims 28 and 29, the prior art, including Kato, fails to teach that “the plurality of recesses or protrusions are in the form of keys,” as recited in claim 27. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art in this specific manner.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Neubauer et al. (US 6,234,084) teaches a railcar frame with panels secured to a bottom frame member using mating protrusions and recesses. Sano et al. (US 2015/0203129) teaches an intermediate coupling member (50) used to connect side paneling (21) to corner posts (40) (Fig. 1).
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 at (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 3615
Prosecution Insights