DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 September 2024 and 19 August 2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements filed 19 February 2025, and 19 May 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the document number for Foreign Patent Documents #22 and #1 respectively are typos. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 19 May 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Foreign Patent Document #2 does not have a concise explanation of relevance or English translation, as per 37 CFR 1.98(3). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the reinforcement liner" in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-6, 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman (US 5178074 A) in view of Jia (CN 216709283 U) and Giesking (US 3422771 A).
In reference to claim 1, Fetterman teaches a reinforced railcar assembly used for the transport of
a container envelope (20) comprising:
a bottom surface (32) (Fig. 2);
rigid side walls (26, 28) extending from the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3), wherein the rigid side walls each have a first length (as seen in Fig. 1, length of the car) and are approximately perpendicular to the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 1);
rigid end walls (22, 24) extending from the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 1) and between the rigid side walls (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the rigid end walls have a second length (as seen in Fig. 2, width of the car) less than the first length; and
angled interior walls (34, 36), wherein each of the angled interior walls is coupled to the bottom surface, the rigid side walls, and one of the rigid end walls (as seen in Fig. 2),
wherein top portions of each of the rigid side walls and rigid end walls define an opening (30) of the container envelope configured to receive (col. 1, lines 5-10)
Fetterman does not teach a reinforcement material disposed over a portion of the bottom surface and/or the angled interior walls.
Jia teaches a reinforcement material (4, 7, 8) (Figs. 1, 3) disposed over a portion of the bottom surface and or the angled interior walls (as seen in Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include a reinforcement material as taught by Jia with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the impact and wear on the vehicle interior (see machine translation, Jia, para. [n0017]).
Fetterman does not teach the transport of granulated metallic units (GMUs).
Giesking teaches the transport of granulated metallic units (GMUs) (col. 1, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include transporting GMUs as taught by Giesking with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the types of materials that can be transported with the railcar since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In reference to claim 2, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement material is a removeable liner (Jia, para. [n0012], “precise replacement”) from the container envelope.
In reference to claim 3, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement material is coupled to the container envelope via one or more of: tack welding, bolting, fastening (Jia, para. [n0027]), clamping, clipping, and hanging to the container envelope.
In reference to claim 4, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement material is comprised of one or more rigid plates (7) (Jia, Fig. 3).
In reference to claim 5, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement material is comprised of one or more of: metal (Jia, para. [n0017], lines 1-3), metal alloy, metal cladding, refractory lining, and polyurethane (Jia, para. [n0017], lines 4-5, “rubber”).
In reference to claim 6, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement material is further disposed over a portion of the rigid side walls (Jia, as seen in Fig. 2, the reinforcement material is disposed over the entirety of the interior).
In reference to claim 11, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface includes a gate (48, 50, 52, 54) configured to discharge GMUs contained in the container envelope (col. 2, lines 37-47).
In reference to claim 12, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 11, wherein (i) the gate is a first gate (48, 50), (ii) the bottom surface includes a second gate (52, 54) configured to discharge GMUs contained in the container envelope, and (iii) the first gate is a first distance in a first direction from a center point of the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 2, first gate is on the left) and the second gate is a second distance in a second direction, opposite the first direction, from the center point of the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 2, second gate is on the right).
In reference to claim 13, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 12, wherein a section of the reinforcement material spans the distance (Jia, as seen in Fig. 1, the reinforcement material is disposed over the entirety of the interior) between the first and second gates.
Claim(s) 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman (US 5178074 A) in view of Jia (CN 216709283 U), Giesking (US 3422771 A), and Wang (CN 112960427 A).
In reference to claim 7, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia and Giesking above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 1, wherein the container envelope further includes
Fetterman does not teach an impact pad configured to absorb the impact of GMUs dropped from a height.
Wang teaches an impact pad (232) configured to absorb the impact of GMUs dropped from a height (see machine translation, para. [n0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include an impact pad as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of further reducing wear from impacts (see Wang, para. [n0027])
In reference to claim 8, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia, Giesking, and Wang above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 7, wherein the impact pad is positioned at
Fetterman does not explicitly teach the impact pad being positioned at approximately a center point along the length of the container envelope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include placing the impact pad at approximately a center point along the length of the container envelope with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the strain of impacts on the center portion of a railcar, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claim 9, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia, Giesking, and Wang above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 7, wherein the impact pad is an open-topped container containing a layer of GMUs (Wang, para. [n0028], lines 5-6).
In reference to claim 10, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Jia, Giesking, and Wang above teaches the railcar assembly of claim 9, wherein the layer of GMUs is granulated pig iron (GPI) (Giesking, col. 1, lines 26-30, “granular iron ore”).
Claim(s) 14, 17, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman (US 5178074 A) in view of Wang (CN 112960427 A) and Giesking (US 3422771 A).
In reference to claim 14, Fetterman teaches a reinforced railcar container for receiving industrial product, the container comprising:
a floor (32) (Fig. 2) comprising
rigid side walls (26, 28) extending from the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 3), wherein the rigid side walls each have a first length (as seen in Fig. 1, length of the car) and are approximately perpendicular to the bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 1); and
rigid end walls (22, 24) extending from the floor (as seen in Fig. 1) and between the rigid side walls (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the rigid end walls have a second length (as seen in Fig. 2, width of the car) less than the first length;
wherein top portions of the each of the rigid side walls and rigid end walls define an opening (30) through which industrial product is deposited into the container (col. 1, lines 5-10).
Fetterman does not teach an impact pad configured to absorb the impact of industrial product dropped from a height, the impact pad positioned at an intermediate region along a length of the container, wherein the impact pad is an open-topped box containing a layer of granulated metallic units (GMUs).
Wang teaches an impact pad (232) configured to absorb the impact of industrial product dropped from a height (para. [n0027]), wherein the impact pad is an open-topped box containing a layer of granulated material (para. [n0028], lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include an impact pad as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of further reducing wear from impacts (see Wang, para. [n0027]).
While the combination of Fetterman as modified by Wang above does not explicitly teach the impact pad being positioned at an intermediate region along a length of the container, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include placing the impact pad at approximately a center point along the length of the container envelope with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the strain of impacts on the center portion of a railcar, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Fetterman does not teach the usage of granulated metallic units (GMUs).
Giesking teaches the usage of granulated metallic units (GMUs) (col. 1, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include transporting GMUs as taught by Giesking with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the types of materials that can be transported with the railcar since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
In reference to claim 17, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Wang and Giesking above teaches the container of claim 14, wherein the industrial product and the layer of GMUs includes GPI (col. 1, lines 26-30, “granular iron ore”).
In reference to claim 19, note that the operation of the prior structure of apparatus claim 14 inherently requires method steps as claimed.
In reference to claim 20, note that the operation of the prior structure of apparatus claim 14 inherently requires method steps as claimed.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetterman (US 5178074 A) in view of Wang (CN 112960427 A), Giesking (US 3422771 A), and Jia (CN 216709283 U).
In reference to claim 15, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Wang and Giesking above teaches the container of claim 14, further comprising
Fetterman does not teach a reinforcement liner disposed over a portion of the floor and a portion of the rigid end walls.
Jia teaches a reinforcement liner (4, 7, 8) (Figs. 1, 3) disposed over a portion of the floor and a portion of the rigid end walls (as seen in Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include a reinforcement liner as taught by Jia with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the impact and wear on the vehicle interior (see machine translation, Jia, para. [n0017]).
In reference to claim 16, the combination of Fetterman as modified by Wang, Giesking, and Jia above teaches the container of claim 15, wherein the reinforcement liner is disposed over a portion of the rigid side walls (Jia, as seen in Figs. 1, 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 18. The combination of Fetterman as modified by Wang and Giesking above teaches the container of claim 14, wherein a first section of a reinforcement liner (4, 7, 8) (Jia, see rejection of claim 15 above, Figs. 1, 3) extends from approximately the top portion of a first rigid end wall and couples to the floor at a first angle (Jia, as seen in Figs. 1, 2), and a second section of the reinforcement liner extends from approximately the top portion of a second rigid end wall and couples to the floor (Jia, as seen in Figs. 1, 2) at a
Fetterman does not teach wherein a second section of the reinforcement liner extends from approximately the top portion of a second rigid end wall and couples to the floor at a second angle different than the first angle.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railcar of Fetterman to include the structure of the railcar being formed to enable a reinforcement liner to extend from the rigid end wall to the floor at different angles as the modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e. the modifications needed would require a complete redesign of the railcar of Fetterman. Furthermore, the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the railcar of Fetterman to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 18 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. However, claim 18 is still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. Claim 18 is also objected to due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 112572487 A) discloses a hopper car for bulk cargo.
Gillis (US 10562545 B2) discloses a covered hopper car with stiffened bulkheads.
Reitz (US 20180345998 A1) discloses hopper car discharge gates.
Yu (CN 103661440 A) discloses a transverse V-type groove in a railway coil and ore transportation car.
Zamorano (US 20090015028 A1) discloses a rubber shield plate for mining dump trucks or freight train cars.
Lydic (US 6244191 B1) discloses a hopper rail car.
Degutis (US 6205931 B1) discloses an aerator pad for fluidizing particulate materials.
Nielsen (US 5803531 A) discloses a liner system with boxes filled with granulate material serving as an impact pad.
Kwok (US 5470186 A) discloses a system for discharge of bulk materials from vehicles.
Jones (US 4361097 A) discloses a railway gondola car.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
