DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15 and 17-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15 and 17-20 are maintained in rejection despite Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 06/16/2025. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 9-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2005/0253397 A1) in view of Kumar (US 2005/0140144 A1) (“Kumar ‘144”).
Referring to Claim 1: Kumar teaches a method for a vehicle, comprising:
controlling application of tractive material (Para. [0031]) for a , axle, or truck (124, 126) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0010]) of the vehicle based on respective individual actual tractive effort of the , axle, or truck (Para. [0028]), and
delivering a stream of compressed air to a portion of a route in advance of an interface of a wheel with the route, and not disturbing or removing tractive material from the route via the stream of compressed air (Para. [0036] recites that “applicator 712 may apply air to dry the top of rail 710, or may apply steam to melt the snow or ice”) (Fig. 7);
Kumar teaches controlling application of the tractive material based on individual actual tractive effort of the axle or truck and does not specifically teach controlling application of tractive materially individually for a lead wheel and a rear wheel. However, Kumar ‘144 teaches a method and system of limiting the application of sand to a railroad car, wherein the nozzle for each wheel is controlled “either simultaneously, individually or in any combination thereof,” and further, “It will be appreciated that the specific combination of individual nozzles or nozzle pairs dispensing sand onto one or both railroad rails may be a function of achieving a desired increase in sanding effectiveness. Independently controlling the flow of sand through nozzles 102-116 helps to limit the amount of sand applied to the rails. This may reduce the risk of environmental damage and the malfunctioning of railroad hardware such as yard or crossing switches. It is known that applying too much sand to such railroad hardware may cause damage to that hardware.” (Para. [0061]). Additionally, paragraph [0082] describes an exemplary method of independent sand applicator control (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kumar to control the nozzles independently for a lead wheel and a rear wheel, as taught by Kumar ‘144, based on the actual tractive effort of the wheel in order to achieve the desired increase in sanding effectiveness for that wheel and further limit the amount of sand applied to the rails, as this may reduce the risk of environmental damage and the malfunctioning of railroad hardware such as yard or crossing switches (see Kumar ‘144, Para. [0082]).
Referring to Claim 2: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 1, further teaches a method, wherein controlling application of tractive material includes delivering tractive material responsive to an actual tractive effort for a given wheel being less than an expected tractive effort of the given wheel (Para. [0044]-[0055]).
Referring to Claim 3: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 1, further teaches a method, wherein the actual tractive effort for the given wheel is based at least in part on one or more of stator current, applied voltage (Para. [0047], lines 7-12), air gap flux, and speed feedback (Para. [0005], [0028], [0047-48] and claim 30) from one or more traction motors powering an axle coupled to the given wheel.
Referring to Claim 5: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 1, further teaches a method, wherein controlling application of tractive material individually for the lead wheel and the rear wheel includes responding to a sensed lead wheel tractive effort being less than an expected lead wheel tractive effort (Para. [0028] and [0048]).
Referring to Claim 6: Kumar teaches a method, further comprising delivering tractive material to a wheel in response to a signal indicating slipping of that specific wheel (Para. [0005], [0028] and [0042]).
Referring to Claim 9: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 1, further teaches a method, wherein delivering tractive material includes delivering compressed air along with delivering tractive material (Para. [0011] and [0031]).
Referring to Claim 10: Kumar teaches a controller for a vehicle having one or more , axle, or truck, comprising:
one or more processors (606) (Para. [0058]) configured to initiate an application of tractive material for the one or more , axle, or truck (124, 126) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0010]) of the vehicle based on respective individual actual tractive effort of the one or more , axle, or truck, (Para. [0028]) (claims 14-16),
wherein the vehicle further includes a compressed air source configured to deliver a stream of compressed air to a portion of a route in advance of an interface of a wheel with the route, and not disturb or remove tractive material from the route via the stream of compressed air (Para. [0036] recites that “applicator 712 may apply air to dry the top of rail 710, or may apply steam to melt the snow or ice”) (Fig. 7).
Kumar teaches controlling application of the tractive material based on individual actual tractive effort of the axle or truck and does not specifically teach initiating application of tractive material individually for a lead wheel and rear wheel. However, Kumar ‘144 teaches a method and system of limiting the application of sand to a railroad car, wherein the nozzle for each wheel is controlled “either simultaneously, individually or in any combination thereof,” and further, “It will be appreciated that the specific combination of individual nozzles or nozzle pairs dispensing sand onto one or both railroad rails may be a function of achieving a desired increase in sanding effectiveness. Independently controlling the flow of sand through nozzles 102-116 helps to limit the amount of sand applied to the rails. This may reduce the risk of environmental damage and the malfunctioning of railroad hardware such as yard or crossing switches. It is known that applying too much sand to such railroad hardware may cause damage to that hardware.” (Para. [0061]). Additionally, paragraph [0082] describes an exemplary method of independent sand applicator control (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kumar to initiate application of tractive material individually for a lead wheel and rear wheel, as taught by Kumar ‘144, based on the actual tractive effort of the wheel in order to achieve the desired increase in sanding effectiveness for that wheel and further limit the amount of sand applied to the rails, as this may reduce the risk of environmental damage and the malfunctioning of railroad hardware such as yard or crossing switches (see Kumar ‘144, Para. [0082]).
Referring to Claim 11: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 10, further teaches a controller, wherein the controller is configured to apply tractive material responsive to an actual tractive effort for a given [wheel] being less than an expected tractive effort of the given wheel, axle, or truck (Para. [0044]-[0055]).
Referring to Claim 12: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 10, further teaches a controller, wherein the actual tractive effort for the given wheel is based at least in part on one or more of stator current, applied voltage (Para. [0047], lines 7-12), air gap flux, and speed feedback (Para. [0005], [0028], [0047-48] and claim 30) from one or more traction motors powering an axle coupled to the given wheel.
Referring to Claim 13: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 10, further teaches a controller, wherein the vehicle further includes a tractive material reservoir coupled to a plurality of nozzles (102-116), each nozzle positioned to deliver the tractive material to the one or more wheel (Para. [0010]) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 14: Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144, as applied to claim 10, further teaches a controller, wherein the one or more processors are configured to initiate the application of the tractive material for a first wheel of the vehicle independent of application of the tractive material for a second wheel of the vehicle, the first and second wheels positioned on a same axle (Para. [0040], last sentence).
Referring to Claim 15: Kumar does not specifically teach that the one or more processors are configured to initiate the application of the tractive material for a first truck of the vehicle independent of application of the tractive material for a second truck of the vehicle. However, Kumar ‘144 teaches, “If a determination is made that applying sand would be effective to increase adhesion then the flow of sand may be independently controlled to flow through one or more of the plurality of sand applicators in any combination.” (Para. [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kumar to independently control application of tractive material to the first and second trucks, in order to optimize traction and sand usage, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 17: Kumar further teaches a vehicle comprising the controller (606) of claim 10 (Fig. 6) (Para. [0028]).
Referring to Claim 18: Kumar teaches a vehicle system comprising:
a lead truck (124) including a lead truck drive system including one or more lead truck traction motors coupled in driving relationship to a plurality of wheels of the lead truck, the one or more traction motors configured to provide motive power for the lead truck (Fig. 1) (Para. [0003]);
a rear truck (126) including a rear truck drive system including one or more rear truck traction motors coupled in driving relationship to a plurality of wheels of the rear truck, the one or more traction motors configured to provide motive power for the rear truck (Fig. 1) (Para. [0003]);
a tractive material application system including a common reservoir (118) for tractive material, the common reservoir fluidly coupled to one or more lead truck nozzles and one or more rear truck nozzles, the one or more lead truck nozzles and the one or more rear truck nozzles delivering tractive material ahead of the plurality of lead truck wheels and plurality of rear truck wheels respectively (Para. [0010]);
a compressed air source configured to deliver a stream of compressed air to a portion of a route in advance of an interface of a wheel with the route, and not disturb or remove tractive material from the route via the stream of compressed air (Para. [0036] recites that “applicator 712 may apply air to dry the top of rail 710, or may apply steam to melt the snow or ice”) (Fig. 7); and
a controller (606) (Para. [0030]) (Fig. 6) configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the controller to:
responsive to a wheel on the lead truck slipping greater than a threshold number, deliver tractive material
Kumar teaches controlling application of the tractive material based on individual actual tractive effort of the axle or truck and does not specifically teach delivering tractive materially individually to wheels on the lead and rear truck, respectively. However, Kumar ‘144 teaches a method and system of limiting the application of sand to a railroad car, wherein the nozzle for each wheel is controlled “either simultaneously, individually or in any combination thereof,” and further, “It will be appreciated that the specific combination of individual nozzles or nozzle pairs dispensing sand onto one or both railroad rails may be a function of achieving a desired increase in sanding effectiveness. Independently controlling the flow of sand through nozzles 102-116 helps to limit the amount of sand applied to the rails. This may reduce the risk of environmental damage and the malfunctioning of railroad hardware such as yard or crossing switches. It is known that applying too much sand to such railroad hardware may cause damage to that hardware.” (Para. [0061]). Additionally, paragraph [0082] describes an exemplary method of independent sand applicator control (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kumar to deliver tractive material individually to wheels on the lead and rear truck, as taught by Kumar ‘144, based on the actual tractive effort of the wheel in order to achieve the desired increase in sanding effectiveness for that wheel and further limit the amount of sand applied to the rails, as this may reduce the risk of environmental damage and the malfunctioning of railroad hardware such as yard or crossing switches (see Kumar ‘144, Para. [0082]).
Referring to Claim 19: Kumar discloses a vehicle system, wherein a wheel on the lead truck slipping is based on an actual tractive effort of the lead truck being less than an expected lead truck tractive effort, the expected lead truck tractive effort based on an expected vehicle tractive effort; and a wheel on the rear truck slipping based on an actual tractive effort of the rear truck being less than an expected rear truck tractive effort, the expected rear truck tractive effort based on the actual lead truck tractive effort and the expected vehicle tractive effort (Para. [0028] and [0044]-[0055]).
Referring to Claim 20: Kumar discloses a vehicle system, wherein the controller includes further instructions that when executed causes the controller to: adjust the expected lead truck tractive effort based on one or more deration conditions of the one or more lead truck traction motors; and adjust the expected rear truck tractive effort based on one or more deration conditions of the one or more rear truck traction motors (Para. [0028] and [0044]-[0055]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Kumar ‘144 and Hines (US 2,286,680).
Referring to Claim 8: Kumar does not specifically teach derating a lead truck (124) traction motor, a rear truck (126) traction motor, or both a lead and rear truck motor based at least in part on an expected lead truck tractive effort (see Kumar, Fig. 1). However, Hines teaches, “It is normally to be expected that the operation of the sanding control apparatus to supply sand to the rails and to reduce the supply of power to the locomotive driving motors as just explained will quickly cause retardation of the slipping driver assembly, until the rotative speed thereof has been brought back to approximately the speed of the other driver assembly” (page 3, column, 1, lines 9-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kumar to derate, i.e., reduce the supply of power, to a lead truck traction motor, in order to reduce slipping of the lead motor and optimize traction and power usage, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claims 1, 10 and 18, Applicant argues that Kumar and Kumar ‘144 fail to teach “delivering a stream of compressed air to a portion of a route in advance of an interface of a wheel with the route, and not disturbing or removing tractive material from the route via the stream of compressed air,” (emphasis added) as claimed because Kumar’s teaching in Para. [0036] that “applicator 712 may apply air to dry the top of rail 710, or may apply steam to melt the snow or ice” is insufficient. Examiner responds that the act of applying air to dry the top of the rail may be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted as satisfying the negative limitation of “not disturbing or removing” because drying indicates the removal of moisture, but not the removal of tractive material, consistent with the plain meaning of these terms and applicant’s Specification.
When interpreting this limitation, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. MPEP § 2111. Further, “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” MPEP § 2111.01. Here, the Specification makes no use of the term “disturbing” and only uses the term “remove” twice in reference to the tractive material in Para. [0119], repeated here as follows, “The air may impact the route (e.g., the rail's top surface) to remove debris and material and thus increase adhesion of the wheel, which results in an increase of tractive effort for the wheel, axle and/or truck. Naturally, the air nozzle system should not be applied antagonistically to remove tractive material dispensed by the air nozzle system (emphasis added).” Since no special definition of “not disturbing or removing” is found in the Specification, one is left with the ordinary and customary meaning of such terms. Merriam Webster defines disturb as: “to interfere with” and remove as: “to change the location, position, station, or residence of” or alternatively, as it may apply here, “to move by lifting, pushing aside, or taking way or off” (see attached definitions). Further, Merriam Webster defines dry as: “free or relatively free from a liquid and especially water” and drying as: “to make dry” (see attached definitions).
The negative limitation of “not” followed by the alternative limitation of “or” creates further issues in interpretation that lead to broadening of a reasonable interpretation. Negative limitations are not inherently ambiguous but must have basis in the original disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.05(i). Here, Para. [0119] of applicant’s Specification appears to provide limited, but sufficient, basis for “not disturbing or removing”. Further, the alternative “or” indicates that only one of not “disturbing” and not “removing” be taught by the prior art to satisfy the claim. Here, the act of not “removing” is reasonably taught by Kumar. Kumar’s teaching in Para. [0036] of “apply[ing] air to dry the top of rail” does not indicate any removal of tractive material. When taken in context, Kumar teaches numerous instances where tractive material is removed (i.e., Para. [0025], [0026], [0032], [0038-0041], [0044] and [0054]), but the act of “drying” is described as a separate function from removing, i.e., drying is the act of applying air to the rail without necessarily removing tractive material, such as sand. Kumar’s act of drying makes no mention of removal of tractive material and is consistent with applicant’s Specification in not “antagonistically” removing tractive material (comparing Para. [0036] of Kumar and Para. [0119] of the instant Specification). Thus, Kumar’s teaching of applying air to dry the top of the rail may be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted as satisfying the negative limitation of “not disturbing or removing” because drying indicates the removal of moisture, but not the removal of tractive material, consistent with the plain meaning of these terms and applicant’s Specification.
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 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 3617