DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 19, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because "space-apart" should be corrected to "spaced-apart."
Claim 15 is objected to because the phrase "which includes active air supplier" omits the article "an." Correction to "which includes an active air supplier" is suggested.
Claims 16 and 22 are objected to because "engagable" should be corrected to "engageable."
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites that the different countermeasure structures "occupy at a percentage that is part of the cubic volume of empty space in the compartment." Independent claim 10 similarly recites that the structures "occupy a percentage that is part of the cubic volume of empty space in the compartment." A percentage is not itself a physical part of a cubic volume. The language does not state with reasonable certainty whether the structures occupy some percentage of the empty-space volume, whether the occupied structure volume is to be divided by the original empty-space volume, or whether another relationship is intended.
The claims may be clarified by reciting, for example, that the different countermeasure structures "occupy a percentage of the cubic volume of empty space in the compartment," with the intended numerator and denominator made explicit.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and recites "the inflatable dunnage bag," but neither claim 20 nor claim 22 previously introduces an inflatable dunnage bag. Claim 21 introduces such a bag, but claim 22 does not depend from claim 21. It is therefore unclear whether claim 22 was intended to depend from claim 21 or to introduce a separate inflatable dunnage bag.
The claim may be clarified by changing its dependency to claim 21 or by introducing "an inflatable dunnage bag" and expressly stating its intended position. The prior art rejection of claim 22 below is made on the reasonable construction that the phrase refers to an inflatable dunnage bag positioned to engage the recited smooth surfaces.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US20190176853A1.
Reference 2 - US20090324358A1.
Reference 3 - US3645214A.
Reference 4 - US5339958A.
Reference 5 - US3822807A.
Reference 6 - US20090277655A1.
Reference 7 - US3076472A.
Reference 8 - US4553887A.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A railroad car that functions as a fuel tender, the railroad car comprising:
(L2) a compartment partially defined by spaced-apart cylinder assemblies, each cylinder assembly including a plurality of cylinders; and
(L3) a plurality of different countermeasure structures in the compartment, wherein the different countermeasure structures occupy at a percentage that is part of the cubic volume of empty space in the compartment.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches railroad car 10 functioning as a natural-gas fuel tender for locomotives. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0004], [0008], and [0074], and Figures 1-2.
(L2) Reference 1 teaches oppositely positioned first and second cylinder assemblies 500 and 600, each including a plurality of cylinders 510 or 610 and inner cylinder holder racks 540 or 640. Their opposed inner racks border the central walkway and equipment area and thus partially define a compartment between the assemblies. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0136] and [0142]-[0148], and Figures 22-29.
(L3) Reference 1 teaches multiple structurally different protective bulkheads, walls, racks, and panels in railroad car 10. Reference 2 further teaches railcar spacer 80 occupying a gap and having different countermeasure structures: rigid plates 24 and 26, cushioning material 32, and inflatable spacing bag 48. Bag 48 is between plates 24 and 26 and expands the plates against the adjacent cylindrical tube packs. These structures necessarily occupy part of the formerly empty gap. This mapping applies the reasonable construction that the malformed percentage phrase requires occupation of some portion of the empty-space volume, but it does not cure the separate section 112(b) rejection. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0074]-[0081]; Reference 2, paragraphs [0014]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place Reference 2's plate, cushioning, and inflatable-bag spacer structures in Reference 1's open central compartment because Reference 1 identifies protection of pressurized fuel cylinders and central gas-handling equipment as a safety objective, and Reference 2 uses those structures in a railcar to occupy an open gap, cushion cylindrical bundles, and restrain movement. The combination would predictably improve restraint, cushioning, void management, and service access in the same railcar environment.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the compartment is partially defined by spaced-apart first and second cylinder holder racks of the cylinder assemblies, and wherein the plurality of countermeasure structures include a first wall filler countermeasure structure mated with the first cylinder holder rack and a second wall filler countermeasure structure mated with the second cylinder holder rack.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 1 teaches the opposed inner cylinder holder racks 540 and 640 of cylinder assemblies 500 and 600 bordering the central walkway and equipment area. Reference 3 teaches a first series of side fillers 43 affixed to one interior sidewall and a second series of side fillers 45 affixed to the opposing interior sidewall; its side fillers are wall panels adjustable toward and away from the walls to occupy lateral space and hold a load. Mounting one such wall-filler panel to the inward wall of rack 540 and another to the opposing inward wall of rack 640 would mate a respective filler to each rack while preserving the compartment between them. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0136] and [0142]-[0148], and Figures 22-29; Reference 3, columns 1-4, Figures 1-3, and claim 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount Reference 3's opposed adjustable wall-filler panels to the inward wall surfaces of Reference 1's opposed inner cylinder holder racks because Reference 3 teaches that the panels efficiently occupy lateral railcar space and restrain loads of varying dimensions, while Reference 1 provides opposed structural rack walls around safety-critical equipment. The predictable result would be two rack-supported fillers that reduce unused space and improve restraint without altering the cylinders or their racks.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the compartment is partially defined by spaced-apart first and second cylinder holder racks of the cylinder assemblies, and wherein the plurality of countermeasure structures include a first wall filler countermeasure structure mated with the first cylinder holder rack, a second wall filler countermeasure structure mated with the second cylinder holder rack, and an inflatable dunnage bag positioned between the first wall filler countermeasure structure and the second wall filler countermeasure structure.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 1 teaches opposed inner cylinder holder racks 540 and 640 bordering the central area. Reference 3 teaches opposed wall-filler panels mounted to opposite interior walls. Reference 2 teaches placing inflatable spacing bag 48 between two rigid plates 24 and 26 and inflating the bag to displace the plates outwardly against respective sides of a railcar gap. Applying that arrangement to the opposed rack-mounted fillers places bag 48 between the first and second wall-filler structures. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0136] and [0142]-[0148], and Figures 22-29; Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4; Reference 3, columns 1-4 and Figures 1-3.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position Reference 2's inflatable bag between the two rack-mounted wall fillers resulting from the combination of References 1 and 3 because Reference 2 expressly uses a bag between opposed rigid plates to expand the plates against the sides of a railcar gap. The arrangement would predictably provide adjustable preload, occupy changing void dimensions, cushion the fillers, and permit deflation for access.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein one of the countermeasure structures is inflatable and one of the countermeasure structures is not inflatable.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 2 teaches inflatable spacing bag 48 together with noninflatable rigid plates 24 and 26 and noninflatable cushioning material 32. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's inflatable bag and noninflatable plates and cushioning in Reference 1's central compartment because their complementary rigid and adjustable structures are expressly used together to occupy a railcar gap, cushion cylindrical loads, and apply controllable restraint. The combination would predictably accommodate tolerance changes while retaining durable bearing surfaces.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein one of the countermeasure structures is inflatable, one of the countermeasure structures is not inflatable, and one of the countermeasure structures includes foam rubber cubes or spheres.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 2 teaches inflatable bag 48 and noninflatable plates 24 and 26 and cushioning material 32. Reference 5 teaches plural openly reticulated plastic-foam balls 5, including hollow balls made of polyurethane ester foam, placed in a combustible-fluid container; the cellular polyurethane balls are foam-rubber spheres under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and Figures 3-4; Reference 5, columns 1-4, the drawing, and claims 1-6.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Reference 5's polyurethane foam spheres among the noninflatable void-filling structures used with Reference 2's inflatable spacer in Reference 1's fuel-tender compartment because Reference 5 teaches that separately placeable foam spheres occupy irregular open regions in a combustible-fluid environment. The predictable result would be lightweight, compliant filling of residual spaces not reached by the plates and inflatable bag.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein one of the countermeasure structures includes a plurality of space-apart compressible blocks.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 4 teaches a cushioning piece 310 having a plurality of spaced-apart, block-shaped cushioning elements 314 projecting from and connected by web wall 316. The elements are made of resilient, compressible cellular or foamed plastic, including polyurethane foam and synthetic rubber products. See Reference 4, columns 3-6, Figures 3-14, and claim 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 4's spaced compressible foam blocks as one of the cushioning structures in the References 1 and 2 railcar arrangement because Reference 4 teaches that the spaced projections immobilize, cushion, and separate transported articles while conforming under load. The predictable result would be distributed cushioning with open intervals for fit, inspection, and deformation.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of different countermeasure structures in the compartment are configured to result in a reduction of possible flame path length in deflagration to prevent or minimize detonation.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 teaches placing plural attenuating components in a defined region containing combustible gas so that void spaces and open pathways between the components are minimized. The components deflect and fragment the deflagration pressure wave, slow its propagation, lower peak pressure, and prevent transition from deflagration to detonation. Configuring the structures in the References 1 and 2 compartment according to this teaching reduces the available open propagation paths and yields the claimed safety function. See Reference 6, abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0021], [0039]-[0044], and [0065]-[0067], and Figures 3B and 5A-5J.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and arrange the different structures in the References 1 and 2 fuel-tender compartment according to Reference 6 because Reference 1 identifies leaked fuel as an ignition hazard and Reference 6 teaches minimizing voids and open pathways with solid attenuating components to disrupt a deflagration pressure wave and prevent transition to detonation. The combination would predictably mitigate the known combustion hazard in the region around the fuel equipment.
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the percentage is at least twenty percent.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 expressly teaches that attenuating material should occupy at least 20 percent by volume of the defined region and illustrates at least 20 percent volume-fill. Under the reasonable construction used for the prior art analysis, that teaching satisfies the threshold, without curing the separate section 112(b) defect in the inherited percentage phrase. See Reference 6, abstract and paragraphs [0014], [0020]-[0021], and [0066], and Figure 3B.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to occupy at least twenty percent of the relevant open compartment region with the References 2 and 6 structures because Reference 6 identifies that level as the minimum useful volume-fill for attenuating deflagration pressure. Selecting its expressly taught lower bound would predictably provide measurable attenuation while preserving access and limiting added material.
________________________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 1, wherein the percentage is equal to or above ninety percent.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 1 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 teaches a 93 percent volume-fill of crimped wire-mesh attenuating cylinders arranged in a closely packed fill that minimized voids and channels, as well as 94 percent and 97 percent fills of ceramic spheres and a 100 percent fill embodiment. Each expressly disclosed fill is equal to or above ninety percent. This mapping applies the same reasonable construction of the inherited percentage phrase and does not cure the section 112(b) rejection. See Reference 6, paragraphs [0063], [0155]-[0163], and [0173]-[0176].
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a fill equal to or above ninety percent for the References 1 and 2 compartment because Reference 6 expressly tests 93, 94, and 97 percent fills, teaches closely packing the components to minimize voids and channels, and reports greater pressure attenuation with increasing fill. Choosing one of those disclosed high-fill configurations would predictably maximize deflagration-pressure attenuation where access and weight permit.
________________________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A railroad car that functions as a fuel tender, the railroad car comprising:
(L2) a compartment partially defined by spaced-apart cylinder assemblies, each cylinder assembly including a plurality of cylinders; and
(L3) a plurality of different countermeasure structures in the compartment, wherein the different countermeasure structures include:
(L4) a plurality of first countermeasure structures in the compartment, and
(L5) a second countermeasure structure in the compartment, wherein the first and second countermeasure structures are different countermeasure structures, wherein the plurality of different countermeasure structures occupy a percentage that is part of the cubic volume of empty space in the compartment.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches railroad car 10 functioning as a natural-gas fuel tender for locomotives. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0004], [0008], and [0074], and Figures 1-2.
(L2) Reference 1 teaches oppositely positioned first and second cylinder assemblies 500 and 600, each including plural cylinders 510 or 610, with the central walkway and equipment area between opposed inner cylinder holder racks 540 and 640. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0136] and [0142]-[0148], and Figures 22-29.
(L3) Reference 1 teaches multiple different protective structures in railroad car 10. Reference 2 teaches railcar spacer 80 occupying an open gap and including rigid plates 24 and 26, cushioning material 32, and inflatable spacing bag 48. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0074]-[0081]; Reference 2, paragraphs [0014]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
(L4) Reference 2 teaches plural rigid plates 24 and 26 as a plurality of first countermeasure structures. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
(L5) Reference 2 teaches inflatable spacing bag 48 as a second structure different from rigid plates 24 and 26. Bag 48 is positioned between the plates, and all three occupy part of the railcar gap. This mapping applies the reasonable construction that the malformed percentage phrase requires occupation of some portion of the empty-space volume, but it does not cure the separate section 112(b) rejection. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0014]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's plural rigid plates and different inflatable bag in Reference 1's central fuel-tender compartment because Reference 2 expressly uses that combination to occupy a railcar gap, distribute force over opposed cylindrical loads, and provide adjustable restraint. The predictable result would be complementary rigid and inflatable countermeasures that cushion and stabilize the fuel equipment while permitting installation and removal.
________________________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of first countermeasure structures includes a backing wall and a plurality of filler blocks connected to and extending from the backing wall.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 10 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 4 teaches a cushioning piece 310 with web wall 316 serving as a backing wall and a plurality of spaced, block-shaped cushioning elements 314 connected to and extending from the wall. Reference 4 teaches multiple dunnage embodiments and use of the pieces at different locations within a shipping container. Using a Reference 4 cushioning piece for each of Reference 2's plural plate-type first structures gives each first structure the claimed backing wall and projecting filler blocks. See Reference 4, columns 3-6, Figures 3-14, and claims 1 and 8.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide each first plate-type countermeasure in the References 1 and 2 arrangement with Reference 4's web-backed projecting foam blocks because Reference 4 teaches that the unitary web supports the spaced blocks and that the blocks cushion, space, and immobilize transported articles. Repeating the same known cushioning construction on the plural bearing structures would predictably distribute loads and reduce point contact on both sides.
________________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 11, wherein the second countermeasure structure includes an inflatable dunnage bag.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 11 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 2 expressly teaches inflatable spacing bag 48 as the second, structurally different element of spacer 80 between the opposed plate structures. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 2's inflatable bag as the second structure when its opposed plates are supplied with Reference 4's web-backed cushioning blocks because Reference 2 teaches that the bag expands the opposed rigid structures against the load. The bag would predictably preload the block-bearing walls, accommodate dimensional variation, and permit deflation for service.
________________________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 11, wherein the second countermeasure structure includes an inflatable dunnage bag positioned between the plurality of first countermeasure structures.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 11 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 2 expressly positions inflatable spacing bag 48 between plural rigid plates 24 and 26 and inflates the bag to drive those plates in opposite directions. With Reference 4's web-backed cushioning pieces applied to the plate structures as mapped for claim 11, the same bag remains between the plurality of first countermeasure structures. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4; Reference 4, columns 3-6 and Figures 3-14.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position Reference 2's inflatable bag between the plural web-backed first structures because that is the arrangement Reference 2 uses to displace opposed plates outwardly and apply restraint. The resulting structure would predictably spread bag force through the backing walls and projecting cushioning blocks to both sides of the compartment.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 10, wherein the second countermeasure structure includes an inflatable dunnage bag.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 10 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 2 expressly teaches inflatable spacing bag 48 as the second structure different from plural rigid plates 24 and 26. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's inflatable spacing bag as the second countermeasure in Reference 1's compartment because Reference 2 teaches that the bag applies adjustable outward force to opposed rigid structures in a railcar gap. The predictable result would be adjustable restraint and cushioning with straightforward deflation for access.
________________________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 14, which includes active air supplier for the inflatable dunnage bag, wherein the active air supplier is connected to an air supply of the railroad car.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 14 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 7 teaches an active apparatus carried by a freight conveyance for automatically controlling pressurization of inflatable dunnage members 1. The apparatus includes hose couplings 2, common charging pipe 3, self-lapping control valve 4, supply pipe 13, and supply reservoir 14. Reservoir 14 supplies pressure fluid through the valve and charging pipe to inflate and maintain the dunnage members, thereby constituting an active air supplier connected to an air supply on the railroad car. See Reference 7, columns 1-5 and Figure 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the Reference 2 inflatable bag in Reference 1's railroad car to Reference 7's onboard reservoir, control valve, charging pipe, and couplings because Reference 7 teaches that this freight-car system automatically inflates and maintains large dunnage members at a selected pressure despite operating changes. The combination would predictably reduce manual inflation, maintain restraint during transit, and permit controlled deflation for service.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 8.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 14, wherein the first countermeasure structures each have a smooth inner surface engagable by the inflatable dunnage bag.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 14 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 8 teaches placing buffer material 22 on both sides of each inflatable dunnage bag so that each bag is sandwiched between upright buffer sections. Each buffer section presents a smooth surface against the air bag to protect it from abrasion and puncture and to distribute bag force. Providing those smooth buffer surfaces on the inward faces of Reference 2's plural first plate structures gives each first structure a smooth inner surface engageable by the bag. See Reference 8, column 3, Figures 4-6.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the inward face of each Reference 2 plate with Reference 8's smooth buffer material because Reference 8 expressly teaches placing smooth buffer surfaces on both sides of a dunnage bag to prevent abrasion and puncture and to distribute force. The modification would predictably extend bag life and reduce concentrated loading on the rigid countermeasures.
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 10, wherein the plurality of different countermeasure structures in the compartment are configured to result in a reduction of possible flame path length in deflagration to prevent or minimize detonation.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 10 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 teaches arranging plural attenuating components in a combustible-gas region to minimize void spaces and open pathways, deflect and fragment the deflagration pressure wave, slow propagation, lower peak pressure, and prevent transition to detonation. Applying that arrangement to the plural first structures and different second structure of claim 10 provides the recited flame-path-reduction function. See Reference 6, abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0021], [0039]-[0044], and [0065]-[0067], and Figures 3B and 5A-5J.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the References 1 and 2 countermeasures according to Reference 6 because Reference 1 identifies leaked gaseous fuel as an ignition hazard and Reference 6 teaches arranging solid attenuating components to minimize open pathways and prevent a deflagration from transitioning to detonation. The predictable result would be improved combustion safety around the fuel-storage equipment.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 10, wherein the percentage is at least twenty percent.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 10 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 expressly teaches that attenuating material should occupy at least 20 percent by volume of the defined region and illustrates that minimum. Under the reasonable construction used for the prior art analysis, that teaching satisfies the threshold, without curing the separate section 112(b) defect in the inherited percentage phrase. See Reference 6, abstract and paragraphs [0014], [0020]-[0021], and [0066], and Figure 3B.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to occupy at least twenty percent of the relevant compartment region with the References 2 and 6 countermeasure structures because Reference 6 identifies at least twenty percent as the minimum volume-fill for its deflagration-attenuation method. Selecting that disclosed lower bound would predictably provide attenuation while preserving space and limiting added material.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 10, wherein the percentage is equal to or above ninety percent.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 10 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 teaches a 93 percent closely packed volume-fill of crimped wire-mesh attenuating cylinders that minimizes voids and channels, 94 percent and 97 percent fills of ceramic spheres, and a 100 percent fill embodiment. Each disclosed configuration is equal to or above ninety percent. This mapping applies the same reasonable construction of the inherited percentage phrase and does not cure the separate section 112(b) rejection. See Reference 6, paragraphs [0063], [0155]-[0163], and [0173]-[0176].
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a fill equal to or above ninety percent for the References 1 and 2 compartment because Reference 6 expressly tests 93, 94, and 97 percent fills, teaches minimizing voids and channels, and reports increasing pressure attenuation with increasing fill. Selecting one of those disclosed high-fill configurations would predictably maximize attenuation where access and weight permit.
________________________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) A railroad car that functions as a fuel tender, the railroad car comprising:
(L2) a compartment partially defined by spaced-apart first and second cylinder holder racks;
(L3) a first wall filler countermeasure structure mated with the first cylinder holder rack; and
(L4) a second wall filler countermeasure structure mated with the second cylinder holder rack.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches railroad car 10 functioning as a natural-gas fuel tender for locomotives. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0004], [0008], and [0074], and Figures 1-2.
(L2) Reference 1 teaches opposed inner cylinder holder racks 540 and 640. Rack 540 has wall 541, rack 640 is substantially identical and oppositely positioned, and the central walkway and gas-equipment area lies between the two racks. The opposed racks therefore partially define the central compartment. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0136] and [0142]-[0148], and Figures 22-29.
(L3) Reference 3 teaches wall-filler countermeasure structures, including movable side-filler panels 22 and 27 affixed to opposing railcar walls and first and second series of side fillers 43 and 45 affixed to opposite interior wall sections. The panels move outward from their supporting walls to occupy space and restrain a load. Mounting a Reference 3 panel to the inward wall of Reference 1's first rack 540 mates a first wall filler with that rack. See Reference 3, columns 1-4, Figures 1-3, and claim 1.
(L4) Reference 3 teaches a corresponding side-filler series on the opposed railcar wall. Mounting a corresponding panel to the inward wall of Reference 1's opposed second rack 640 mates a second wall filler with that rack. See Reference 1, paragraphs [0142]-[0148], and Figures 22-29; Reference 3, columns 1-4, Figures 1-3, and claim 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount Reference 3's opposed adjustable side-filler panels to the inward walls of Reference 1's opposed inner cylinder holder racks because Reference 3 teaches using paired wall-mounted fillers in a railroad car to occupy otherwise unused lateral space, restrain a load, and accommodate different dimensions, while Reference 1 provides robust opposed rack walls around a central equipment compartment. The modification would predictably reduce open space and stabilize or shield central equipment without changing the cylinders or the rack-supported fuel-tender function.
________________________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and further in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 20, which includes an inflatable dunnage bag positioned between the first wall filler countermeasure structure and the second wall filler countermeasure structure.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 20 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 2 teaches inflatable spacing bag 48 positioned between rigid plates 24 and 26 in a railcar gap. Inflating bag 48 displaces the two plates away from one another and against respective opposing sides. Applying that arrangement to the opposed rack-mounted wall fillers of claim 20 positions the bag between the first and second fillers. See Reference 2, paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0020], and Figures 3-4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position Reference 2's inflatable dunnage bag between the two rack-mounted wall fillers of the References 1 and 3 combination because Reference 2 expressly uses a bag between opposed rigid structures to occupy a railcar gap and displace the structures outwardly. The predictable result would be adjustable preload, cushioning, and accommodation of dimensional tolerances, with deflation permitting equipment access.
________________________________________
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and further in view of Reference 8.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 20, wherein the first wall filler countermeasure structure has a smooth inner surface engagable by the inflatable dunnage bag, and the second wall filler countermeasure structure has a smooth inner surface engagable by the inflatable dunnage bag.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 20 are incorporated here. As explained in the section 112(b) rejection, this prior art analysis reasonably construes "the inflatable dunnage bag" as an inflatable bag positioned to engage the recited surfaces.
(L1) Reference 8 teaches an inflatable dunnage bag with upright buffer material 22 on both sides, so that the bag is sandwiched between buffer sections. Each buffer section presents a smooth surface against the air bag to prevent abrasion and puncture and distribute force. Providing Reference 8's smooth buffer material on the inward face of each opposed Reference 3 filler gives the first and second wall fillers smooth inner surfaces engageable by the bag. See Reference 8, column 3, Figures 4-6.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide each inward-facing wall-filler surface in the References 1 and 3 combination with Reference 8's smooth buffer material because Reference 8 expressly places smooth buffer surfaces on both sides of an inflatable dunnage bag to protect the bag from abrasion and puncture and to distribute its force. The modification would predictably improve bag durability and spread loading over both rack-mounted fillers.
________________________________________
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The railroad car of Claim 20, wherein the first wall filler countermeasure structure and the second wall filler countermeasure structure in the compartment are configured to result in a reduction of possible flame path length in deflagration to prevent or minimize detonation.
Analysis
The limitation-by-limitation mapping and rationale for claim 20 are incorporated here.
(L1) Reference 6 teaches selecting and placing plural attenuating components in a defined region containing combustible gas so that void spaces and open pathways between components are minimized. The components deflect and fragment a deflagration pressure wave, slow propagation, lower peak pressure, and prevent transition to detonation. Configuring the opposed rack-mounted wall fillers with Reference 6's component geometry and placement reduces open propagation paths between the fillers and provides the claimed safety function. See Reference 6, abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0021], [0039]-[0044], and [0065]-[0067], and Figures 3B and 5A-5J.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the References 1 and 3 wall fillers according to Reference 6 because Reference 1 identifies leaked gaseous fuel as an ignition hazard and Reference 6 teaches minimizing voids and open pathways with attenuating components to disrupt deflagration propagation and prevent transition to detonation. The predictable result would be improved deflagration safety in the central fuel-equipment compartment while the fillers retain their space-filling and protective functions.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 6, 15, 16, and 22 are objected to for the informalities identified above.
No claim is indicated as allowable.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights