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 Objections
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, lines 1-2, the phrase “the pair to top gates” should be changed to “the pair of top gates”.
In claim 18, lines 1-2, the phrase “the front are rear” should be changed to “the front and rear”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "(or approximately 40 degrees)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-5, 8-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett (US 2,851,964) in view of WO 2019/069235 A1.
Referring to Claim 1: Puckett teaches a dump car, comprising:
a container (10) mounted to or formed on a chassis (12), the container having a front wall (26) proximate a front of the dump car and a rear wall (26) proximate a rear of the dump car (Fig. 1);
a pair of longitudinal top gates (18, 20) mounted between the front and rear walls of the container and forming a roof of the container (Figs. 1 and 4);
a pair of longitudinal side gates (22, 24) mounted between the front and rear walls of the container and forming respective side walls of the container (Figs. 1 and 4); and,
wherein the pair of longitudinal top gates (18, 20) are moveable between a closed position (Fig. 4) in which a top opening into the container is closed to an opened position (Fig. 5) in which the top opening into the container is opened to thereby load material through the top opening into the container; and,
wherein the pair of longitudinal side gates (22, 24) are moveable between a closed position (Fig. 4) in which respective side openings into the container are closed to an opened position (Fig. 6) in which the respective side openings into the container are opened to thereby unload the material through the respective side openings from the container (Col. 2, lines 30-41).
Puckett does not specifically teach a longitudinal two-sided chute being A-frame shaped and forming a floor of the container. However, WO 2019/069235 teaches a dump car, comprising a longitudinal two-sided chute (5) being A-frame shaped and forming a floor of the container (Fig. 6) (see attached EPO translation, Para. [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to form a floor of the container with a longitudinal two-sided chute being A-frame shaped, as taught by WO 2019/069235, in order to assist in emptying the dump car of bulk materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the top gates (18, 20) and the side gates (22, 24) are arced or curved (Fig. 4).
Referring to Claim 3: Puckett further teaches a dump car, further comprising a pair of front wheels (14) mounted proximate to a front end of the chassis (12) and a pair of rear wheels (14) mounted proximate to a rear end of the chassis (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 4: Puckett does not specifically teach a first pair of actuators coupled between the pair of top gates and operable to move the pair of top gates between the closed position and the opened position. However, WO 2019/069235 teaches a using an actuator piston (8) to open and close doors remotely (Para. [0052]) (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to use an actuator to open and close the top gates remotely, as taught by WO 2019/069235, in order to automate the opening and closing processes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: Puckett does not specifically teach a second pair of actuators coupled between the pair of side gates and operable to move the pair of side gates between the closed position and the opened position. However, WO 2019/069235 teaches a using an actuator piston (8) to open and close doors remotely (Para. [0052]) (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to use an actuator to open and close the side gates remotely, as taught by WO 2019/069235, in order to automate the opening and closing processes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 8: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein respective bottom edges of the pair of top gates (18, 20) overlap respective top edges of the pair of side gates (22, 24) when the pair of top gates and the pair of side gates are in respective closed positions (Fig. 4) (Col. 2, lines 30-41).
Referring to Claim 9: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the pair of top gates (18, 20) are operable to move between the closed position (Fig. 4) and the opened position (Fig. 5) using or assisted by gravity (Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Referring to Claim 10: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the pair of side gates (22, 24) are operable to move between the opened position (Fig. 6) and the closed position (Fig. 4) using or assisted by gravity (Col. 2, lines 1-12).
Referring to Claim 11: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the pair of top gates (18, 20) are configured to travel above respective outer surfaces of the pair of side gates (22, 24) when moving between the closed position (Fig. 4) and the opened position (Fig. 5) (Col. 2, lines 30-41).
Referring to Claim 12: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the pair of side gates (22, 24) are configured to travel below respective inner surfaces of the pair of top gates (18, 20) when moving between the closed position (Fig. 4) and the opened position (Fig. 6) (Col. 2, lines 30-41).
Referring to Claim 13: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein each of the pair to top gates (18, 20) and each of the pair of side gates (22, 24) may be operated simultaneously or individually (Col. 2, lines 30-41) (Figs. 4-6).
Referring to Claim 14: Puckett does not teach that the first and second panels of the two-sided chute slope downwards toward respective sides of the container at respective angles of 40 degrees (or approximately 40 degrees). However, However, WO 2019/069235 teaches a dump car, comprising a longitudinal two-sided chute (5), wherein the first and second panels of the two-sided chute slope downwards toward respective sides of the container at respective angles of 45 degrees (or approximately 40 degrees) (Fig. 6) (see attached EPO translation, Para. [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to form a floor of the container with a longitudinal two-sided chute sloped downwards at an angle of approximately 40 degrees, as taught by WO 2019/069235, in order to facilitate unloading the product and ensure that all the product comes out through the unloading doors (see WO 2019/069235, Para. [0092]) with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 16: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein respective side edges of the front and rear walls (26) of the container (10) are arced or curved to align with the top gates (18, 20) and the side gates (22, 24) (Figs. 4-6).
Referring to Claim 17: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the top gates (18, 20) and the side gates (22, 24) extend over the front and rear walls (26) of the container (Figs. 4-6).
Referring to Claim 18: Puckett further teaches a dump car, wherein the top gates (18, 20) and the side gates (22, 24) are pin or pivot (28) mounted to the front are rear walls (26) of the container (Figs. 4-6) (Col. 2, lines 19-29).
Referring to Claim 20: Puckett discloses the claimed invention except for the chassis and the container being formed as one body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the chassis and the container as one body, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett in view of WO 2019/069235 and Herzog et al. (US 2021/0046956 A1).
Referring to Claim 6: Puckett does not specifically teach that each of the first pair of actuators is operable independently to move one of the pair of top gates between the closed position and the opened position. However, Herzog teaches a centering apparatus for hopper car doors, wherein the cylinder actuators (10) are operable independently to move the gates (12) between the closed position and the opened position (Para. [0011]) (Figs. 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to use independent actuators to open and close the top gates, as taught by Herzog, in order to provide greater control over the opening and closing of the gates with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 7: Puckett does not specifically teach that each of the second pair of actuators is operable independently to move one of the pair of side gates between the closed position and the opened position. However, Herzog teaches a centering apparatus for hopper car doors, wherein the cylinder actuators (10) are operable independently to move the gates (12) between the closed position and the opened position (Para. [0011]) (Figs. 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to use independent actuators to open and close the side gates, as taught by Herzog, in order to provide greater control over the opening and closing of the gates with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett in view of WO 2019/069235 and Kipp (US 1,483,893).
Referring to Claim 15: Puckett does not specifically teach that respective outer ends of the first and second panels of the two-sided chute extend beyond respective side walls of the chassis. However, Herzog teaches a coke handling car, comprising an apron (42) extending from the chute beyond the chassis (10) (Fig. 2), wherein “[t]his apron 42 serves to keep the quenched coke from coming in contact with the axle, the axle bearing, the wheels and the track.” (Page 2, lines 117-119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Puckett to use a chute that extends beyond the side walls of the chassis, as taught by Kipp, in order to keep material from coming in contact with the axle, the axle bearing, the wheels and the track with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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 19, Puckett fails to teach that “respective top edges of the front and rear walls of the container are arced or curved less than the respective side edges of the front and rear walls.” Rather, Puckett teaches circular front and rear walls (26) of the container (Fig. 4). Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Puckett so that the top edges are curved less than the side edges. Further, such a modification, flattening the top edge of Puckett, may interfere with the intended operation of Puckett, where each of the side doors (20, 22) are capable of rotating to the top edge of the front and rear walls (26) (see Fig. 6).
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights