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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under provisional Application No. 62/641,614, filed on 03/12/2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 7 recites “each cap fitted into the interior of the side stake includes weep holes at beveled corners of the cap.” This is taught by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2.
Claim 12 recites “plurality of the side stakes include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface, and outward taper of an inner face of each of the pair of legs of side stake from the side sill to the top chord sections.” This is taught by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2.
Claim 13 recites “a stub reinforcing plate within at least one of the side stakes extending between and coupled to the pair of legs.” This is taught by claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2.
Claim 14 recites “each stub reinforcing plate within a side stake does not extend an entire length of the side stake.” This is taught by claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2.
Claim 16 recites “each stub reinforcing plate within a side stake reinforces an area of the side stake around the side sill through a bottom of the side stake.” This is taught by claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2.
Claim 17 recites “a plurality of the side stakes include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface, and a cap fitted into an interior of the side stake.” This is taught by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12054183 B2.
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 10, 12-14, and 16-17 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 10 recites “the top chord” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the top chord” has been construed as “a top chord”
Claim 12 recites “the top chord sections” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the top chord sections” has been construed as “top chord sections”.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected for their dependency on claim 12.
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) 1-2, 6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 107672612 A, provided), in view of Fetterman et al. (US 5562046 A).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches (Fig. 1-5): A railcar comprising: a pair of end walls (3) and a pair of sidewalls (2)(Fig. 1-2), wherein each sidewall (2) includes at least one side sheet having an inside surface facing an interior of the railcar and an outside surface facing an exterior of the railcar (Fig. 1-3), a plurality of side stakes (side columns 22, 23) coupled to the exterior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall (2)(Fig. 1); and an underframe construction including a center sill (center beam 11) running the length of the railcar (Fig. 1), a pair of bolsters (sleeper beams 12) configured to be above truck assemblies (Fig. 1), wherein each of the bolsters (12) is coupled to the center sill (11), and a plurality of lateral I-Beam cross bearers (I-beam crossbeam 14) that extend from the center sill (11) toward the side sheet of one of the sidewalls (2)(Fig. 1 and 5), wherein a lower end (143) of each I-Beam cross bearer (14) is above a lower end of the center sill (11)(Fig. 1), and longitudinal stringers (annotated Fig. 1 below) extending from select ones of the cross bearers (14) to one of the bolsters (12) and longitudinal stringers extending from each bolster (12) to one end wall structure of the pair of end walls (3)(annotated Fig. 1 below).
Li does not explicitly teach a side sill coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall, wherein the side sill of each sidewall extends at least the length of the car between the bolsters.
However, Fetterman teaches an alternate rail car underframe construction, wherein (Fig. 1-2 and 10): a side sill (side sill 20) is coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall (side wall 28)(Fig. 1-2), wherein the side sill (20) of each sidewall (28) extends the length of the car (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Li to include a side sill coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the side wall, wherein the side sill extends the length of the rail car, as disclosed by Fetterman, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a side sill that is connected to both the cross bearers and the side stakes while providing minimal clearance between the side sill and the rails (Col. 1, line 30 – col. 2, line 16), as well as structurally strengthening the rail underframe for supporting a floor.
Regarding claim 2, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): a plurality of the cross bearers (14) which are positioned between the bolsters (12) include a vertical connection plate (bottom of side plate 24) which is coupled to a side stake (22, 23)(Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): a plurality of the side stakes (22, 23) include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface (Fig. 1), and a cap (stiffening plate 232 closing the side stake’s bottom) fitted into an interior of the side stake (Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): floor sheets (floor 15) supported above the center sill and the I-Beam cross bearers (14)(Fig. 1-2 and 5), wherein the floor sheets (15) stop short of the inside surface of the side sheet of each of the sidewalls (2)(Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the secondary reference Fetterman further teaches (Fig. 1-2): the side sill (20) is a structural angle (Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Li to include the side sill as a structural angle, as disclosed by Fetterman, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a side sill that is connected to both the cross bearers and the side stakes while providing minimal clearance between the side sill and the rails (Col. 1, line 30 – col. 2, line 16), as well as structurally strengthening the rail underframe for supporting a floor.
Regarding claim 10, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): bolster side stakes (sleeper column 21) that extends from the top chord to a laterally extending part of a bolster (12)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the longitudinal stringers are formed as one of channels, S-beams, or t-sections (annotated Fig. 1 below shows the stringers as T-sections).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 107672612 A, provided), in view of Fetterman et al. (US 5562046 A) and Kress et al. (US 10737705 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): wherein a plurality of the side stakes (22, 23) include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach a stub reinforcing plate within the side stake extending between and coupled to the pair of legs.
However, Kress teaches an alternate railcar side stake, wherein (Fig. 1-3): a stub reinforcing plate (reinforcing plate 40) is within the side stake (10) extending between and coupled to a pair of legs (24) that extends from an outer face surface (22)(Fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Li to include a stub reinforcing plate with the side stake between and coupled to a pair of legs that extends from the outer face surface, as disclosed by Kress, with a reasonable expectation of success because “adding the reinforcement to an area on the side stake close to the bending moment greatly enhances the bending properties of the member at this area” (col. 2, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 4, the secondary reference Kress further teaches (Fig. 1-3): wherein each stub reinforcing plate (40) within a side stake (10) does not extend an entire length of the side stake (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the secondary reference Kress further teaches (Fig. 1-3): each stub reinforcing plate (40) within a side stake (10) reinforces an area of the side stake around the side sill through a bottom of the side stake (col. 2, lines 15-21; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches (Fig. 1-5): A gondola railcar comprising: a pair of sidewalls (2) coupled, wherein each sidewall (2) includes a side sheet having an inside surface facing an interior of the railcar and an outside surface facing an exterior of the railcar (Fig. 1), a plurality of side stakes (22, 23) coupled to the exterior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall (2)(Fig. 1); and an underframe construction including a center sill (11) running the length of the railcar (Fig. 1), bolsters (12) configured to be above truck assemblies (Fig. 1), wherein each of the bolsters (12) is coupled to the center sill (11), and a plurality of lateral I-Beam cross bearers (14) that extend from the center sill (11) toward the side sheet of one of the sidewalls (2)(Fig. 1), wherein a plurality of the cross bearers (14) which are positioned between the bolsters include a vertical connection plate (bottom of side plate 24) which is coupled to a side stake (23)(Fig. 5), wherein a plurality of the side stakes (22, 23) include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface (Fig. 1).
Li does not explicitly teach a side sill coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall, wherein the side sill of each sidewall extends at least the length of the car between the bolsters.
However, Fetterman teaches an alternate rail car underframe construction, wherein (Fig. 1-2 and 10): a side sill (side sill 20) is coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall (side wall 28)(Fig. 1-2), wherein the side sill (20) of each sidewall (28) extends the length of the car (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Li to include a side sill coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the side wall, wherein the side sill extends the length of the rail car, as disclosed by Fetterman, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a side sill that is connected to both the cross bearers and the side stakes while providing minimal clearance between the side sill and the rails (Col. 1, line 30 – col. 2, line 16), as well as structurally strengthening the rail underframe for supporting a floor.
Li further does not explicitly teach a stub reinforcing plate within the side stake extending between and coupled to the pair of legs.
However, Kress teaches an alternate railcar side stake, wherein (Fig. 1-3): a stub reinforcing plate (reinforcing plate 40) is within the side stake (10) extending between and coupled to a pair of legs (24) that extends from an outer face surface (22)(Fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Li to include a stub reinforcing plate with the side stake between and coupled to a pair of legs that extends from the outer face surface, as disclosed by Kress, with a reasonable expectation of success because “adding the reinforcement to an area on the side stake close to the bending moment greatly enhances the bending properties of the member at this area” (col. 2, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 19, the secondary reference Kress further teaches (Fig. 1-3): wherein each stub reinforcing plate (40) within a side stake (10) does not extend an entire length of the side stake (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Li further teaches (Fig. 1-5): a lower end (143) of each I-Beam cross bearer (14) is above a lower end of the center sill (11)(Fig. 1), and longitudinal stringers (annotated Fig. 1 below) extending from select ones of the cross bearers (14) to one of the bolsters (12) and longitudinal stringers extending from each bolster (12) to one end wall structure of the pair of end walls (3)(annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-14, and 16-17 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 claims and if all rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome and if a Terminal Disclaimer is filed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach each cap fitted into the interior of the side stake includes weep holes at beveled corners of the cap. While Li teaches (Fig. 1-5): a plurality of the side stakes (22, 23) include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface (Fig. 1), and a cap (stiffening plate 232 closing the side stake’s bottom) fitted into an interior of the side stake (Fig. 1 and 5), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the cap to have weep holes at the cap’s beveled corners. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 12 and its depending claim(s) 13-14 and 16-17, the prior art fails to teach outward taper of an inner face of each of the pair of legs of side stake from the side sill to the top chord sections. While Li teaches (Fig. 1-5): a plurality of the side stakes (22, 23) include an outer face surface and a pair of legs extending from the outer face surface (Fig. 1); and the secondary reference Fetterman teaches an alternate rail car underframe construction, wherein (Fig. 1-2 and 10): a side sill (side sill 20) is coupled to an interior surface of the side sheet of the sidewall (side wall 28)(Fig. 1-2), wherein the side sill (20) extends the length of the car (Fig. 1), the examiner finds no obvious reason to further modify the side stake of Li to outwardly taper at an inner face of each of the pair of legs of side stake from the side sill to the top chord sections. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of an open top gondola railcar having an underframe construction and side stakes: US-2788750-A, US-3079874-A, US-3319585-A, US-6000342-A, US-20050087096-A1, US-7461600-B2, US-20100006000-A1, US-20100011987-A1, US-8931418-B2, US-9156478-B2, US-9346472-B2, US-10259472-B2, WO-2012135897-A1, CN-104527690-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights