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 .
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) 1-9, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VEDANI (WO 2009/130725) in view of Harland (US 2001/0022332)
Re Claims 1, 18 and 19; Vedani discloses a supply system (VH) for supplying electrical voltage, the supply system comprising:
at least one voltage supply (40) which has a voltage source; (Par 5 line 38-35) and at least two electrical load units (10), wherein:
the electrical load units each have a first input (12), a second input (11) and an electrical load (10 itself is the load. For instance, the detecting units 10 are preferably mounted on a bumper (or both bumpers) of a vehicle; more generally the detecting units 10 are mounted on the vehicle in such a manner that they can detect the presence of obstacles in the region in front of and/or in the region at the back of the vehicle itself. Page 4 line 27-35);
each of the electrical load units has a switch (15) which is arranged between the respective first (12) and the respective second inputs (11); (Fig. 1)
at least one electrical load unit is electrically coupled to the voltage supply; (Fig. 1)
the electrical loads are electrically connected in parallel with each other; (Fig. 1)
the electrical loads are connected between a supply line and ground; (Fig. 1)
each of the electrical load units is configured to autonomously drive the respective switch; (Fig. 1 and also see Page 8 line 20-35) and the electrical loads are sensors, and the sensors are arranged along an object to be monitored (Page 4 line 27-35)
Vedani does not disclose
The sensors being wheel sensor and the wheel sensors are arranged along railway tracks, the wheel sensor are configured to detect vehicle moving along railway tracks and each wheel sensor is fixed to the railway tracks and the supply system extends over a length of several meters or several kilometers
However, Harland the sensors being wheel sensor and the wheel sensors are arranged along railway tracks, the wheel sensor are configured to detect vehicle moving along railway tracks and each wheel sensor is fixed to the railway tracks and the supply system extends over a length of several meters or several kilometers (Par 0017 and 34)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have coupled the sensors of Harland with the device of Vedani in order to enhance safety and convenience by detecting objects in the vehicle's surroundings, aiding in parking, and potentially preventing accidents.
Re Claim 2; Vedani discloses wherein the supply has at least one further voltage supply (VL 20) with a further voltage source. (Fig. 1)
Re Claim 3; Vedani discloses wherein each switch (15) is exclusively driven by information of the associated electrical load unit. (Page 6 line 11-35)
Re Claim 4; Vedani discloses wherein the voltage supply comprises a current limitation or a power limitation (60) (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 5; Vedani discloses wherein in each case two electrical load units are electrically connected to one another via exactly one supply line (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 6 and 7; Vedani discloses wherein the electrical loads each comprise a sensor In particular, each detecting unit is preferably provided with a sensor 16, adapted to generate radiation and to receive. corresponding reflected radiation so that the presence/closeness of obstacles can be determined. Preferably, sensor 16 can be able to determine the distance to which an obstacle is, relative to the vehicle on which apparatus 1 is mounted.
As diagrammatically shown in Fig. 2, sensor 16 can comprise an ultrasonic transducer 16a,- coupled to a transformer 16b interlocked with a pair of transistors 16c preferably operated in a push-pull modal (Fig. 2 and Page 4)
Vedani does not disclose wherein the electrical loads each comprise a sensor, an inductive sensor and wherein each of the electrical load units comprises an energy storage.
However, electrical load comprises an inductive sensor and an energy storage was known and it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to powered the loads with the additional power when the main power fails in order to provide a redundant power system. Furthermore, An inductive sensor is a device that uses the principle of electromagnetic induction to detect or measure objects and would have been obvious to have replaced the sensor with an inductive sensor since they are functionally equivalent.
Re Claim 8; Vedani discloses wherein the first inputs and the second inputs are each electrically connected to an electric valve (the diode between 12 and 13, Fig. 2).
Re Claim 9; Vedani discloses wherein the electric valves each comprise a diode or a transistor. (Fig. 2)
Re Claim 16; Vedani discloses wherein for each electrical load unit, opening of the respective switch is to lead to an interruption of a supply path (Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vedani in view of Harland and further in view of Vogel (US 2011/0317321)
Re Claim10; Vedani discloses a switch as disclose above.
Hida does not disclose wherein a resistor is connected in parallel with each switch.
However, Vogel discloses resistor (9) is connected in parallel with each switch. (Fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have a resistor with the switch in order to guide and limit a short-circuit current in the event of a short circuit. (Par 0046)
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Vedani in view of Harland and further in view of Brosh et al (US 5,962,929)
Re Claim 11; Vedani discloses wherein each of the electrical load units as discussed above.
Vedani does not disclose comprises a measuring device (30) configured to determine the voltage applied to the respective electrical load unit. (Fig. 2).
However, Brosh discloses a measuring device (30) configured to determine the voltage applied to the respective electrical load unit. (Fig. 2 and also see Col. 2 Line 29-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have included a measuring device (30) configured to determine the voltage applied to the respective electrical load unit in order to compares the voltage across the switch to a reference. If the voltage across the switch exceeds the reference voltage, an output from the detector 30 triggers conduction of an SCR 32, which acts as a semiconductor switch providing a low resistance path for the current source 10 around the switch 16
Re Claim 12; Vedani discloses wherein each of the electrical load units is adapted to drive the respective switch in dependence of the voltage applied to the respective electrical load unit. (Fig. 1, (Page 6 line 11-35)
Re Claim 13; Brosh discloses wherein for each electrical load unit the switch is opened when the voltage applied to the electrical load unit is below a predefinable minimum value. (Col. 2 line 15-37)
Re Claim 14 and 15; Brosh disclose a switch opening and closing as discussed above.
Brosh does not disclose the opening of the switch takes place after a predefinable period of time when the voltage applied to the electrical load unit is below or above a predefinable minimum value.
However, opening and closing a switch based on a threshold was known and it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have controlled the switch based on the threshold in order to drive the switch effectively so that the load is powered effectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant argues that Harland does not disclose “each wheel sensor is fixed to the railway tracks,” because Harland states:
“the wheel sensor 22 is mounted adjacent to track 12” (Harland ¶[0017]).
Applicant asserts that “adjacent” is not “fixed to.”
Examiner Response
The argument is not persuasive.
Harland clearly teaches that the wheel sensor is a stationary, track-side, fixed installation forming part of a permanent wheel-counting station. Paragraph [0017] states:
“Wheel sensor 22 is mounted adjacent to track 12 and is adapted and configured to accurately and precisely count the number of wheels…”
The same paragraph further explains that the wheel sensor is part of a “wheel monitor 21” that is positioned along track 12 and is mounted in a fixed location. The term “mounted” in the art denotes a fixed installation, not a movable or temporary placement. Harland repeatedly describes these stations as fixed infrastructure:
“A plurality of wheel monitors 21 positioned along track 12…” (Harland ¶[0017]). “Each wheel counting station having a known location…” (Harland ¶[0007]).
A person of ordinary skill would understand that a wheel sensor used to detect passing rail wheels must be rigidly fixed to the rail or track structure to maintain alignment, calibration, and reliability. Whether the sensor is fixed on the rail or fixed adjacent to the rail is an obvious matter of engineering placement, not a patentable distinction.
Motivation to Combine with Vedani
Vedani provides the electrical architecture (shared supply line, voltage-based communication). Harland provides the application environment (distributed sensors along a railway). Combining them merely applies Vedani’s known communication/supply scheme to Harland’s known distributed wheel sensors an expressly predictable use of prior-art elements according to KSR.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Independent Claim 18
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant argues that Harland’s wheel monitors may be spaced 5 km apart (Harland ¶[0034]) and that combining this with Vedani would require a “vehicle” of 5 km length, which Vedani does not contemplate.
Examiner Response
This argument misinterprets the basis of the combination.
The Office Action does not combine Vedani and Harland by physically merging their structures into a single “vehicle.” Instead, Vedani is relied upon only for its electrical supply and communication architecture, not for its physical mounting location.
Harland supplies the physical environment: distributed sensors along a railway over kilometers. Vedani supplies the electrical technique: a shared conductive path with superimposed voltages for communication.
Nothing in the rejection suggests that Vedani’s detecting units remain mounted on a car. Rather, the skilled artisan would apply Vedani’s communication/supply method to Harland’s distributed wheel sensors.
This is a textbook application of KSR: using a known communication architecture (Vedani) in a known distributed-sensor environment (Harland) to achieve predictable results.
Harland Explicitly Teaches Long-Distance Distributed Sensors
Harland states:
“Rail monitoring stations… can be positioned every 5 kilometers along the track.” (Harland ¶[0034]).
Thus, Harland not Vedani provides the long-distance distribution. Vedani’s architecture is simply applied to Harland’s environment.
No “5-kilometer vehicle” is required or implied.
The rejection of claim 18 is therefore maintained.
Independent Claim 19
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant argues that Vedani does not disclose supply lines “each having a length of several hundred meters or several kilometers,” and that Harland does not disclose supply lines between electrical load units.
Examiner Response
The argument is not persuasive.
Harland Teaches Distributed Sensors Over Kilometers
Harland explicitly teaches that wheel monitors are spaced kilometers apart:
“Rail monitoring stations… positioned every 5 kilometers along the track.” (Harland ¶[0034]).
These stations are connected to a central computer via communication lines (¶[0019], ¶[0020], ¶[0027]). The communication lines necessarily extend over the same multi-kilometer distances as the station spacing.
Vedani Teaches a Shared Conductive Path Between Load Units
Vedani teaches:
“A conductive path (50) connecting the detecting units (10) to each other in succession…” (Vedani p. 6, lines 1–5).
This is precisely a supply/communication line between load units.
Motivation to Combine
A skilled artisan would recognize that Vedani’s shared conductive path can be applied to Harland’s distributed wheel sensors to reduce wiring complexity and enable communication over long distances.
This yields the claimed “supply lines between the electrical load units each having a length of several hundred meters or several kilometers.”
Applicant’s Argument That Harland Shows No “Supply Lines Between Load Units”
Harland shows each wheel monitor connected to a central computer, but nothing in Harland teaches away from daisy-chaining or serial connection. The modification is a predictable design choice to reduce wiring, consistent with Vedani’s explicit purpose:
“to reduce the number of wires/pins used for obtaining a connection…” (Vedani p. 3, lines 1–5).
Thus, the combination is proper, and claim 19 remains unpatentable.
Dependent Claims
Because the rejections of independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are maintained, the dependent claims remain unpatentable. No separate arguments were presented for the dependent claims beyond those addressed above.
Conclusion
The applicant’s arguments do not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. The cited references, when properly combined, teach or render obvious all limitations of claims 1–9, 16, 18, and 19. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
03/10/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836