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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection after the Request for Continued Examination dated 22 April 2026 to enter the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 06 April 2026.
Terminology
Please note that in the art the term “axle” can refer an entire assembly including accompanying bearings, or it can refer to just the metal shaft between the wheels. As evidence of the former interpretation, please consider BARTONEK (US 2014/0088801) which states in para. 10, “Each truck may include two or more axle bearing systems ("axles").” MIAN et al. (US 2010/0100275) states in para. 37, “Axle 6A includes a hub bearing 6C attached thereto.” RALPH (US 6,823,242) states in col. 1 lines 20-25, “each truck 16, as shown for trucks 161 and 162, typically includes two or more axle bearing systems (hereinafter "axles"), such as axles 181.” This is important because a rejection below is based on the disclosure of FRIESEN which discusses (para. 41-44) the measuring of the temperatures of bearings (1 in FIG. 1) supporting the axle (2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRIESEN (US 2012/0197505) in view of KEUHN (WO 0002022 A1). Please note that a machine translation of KEUHN was included with the office action dated May 10, 2024. Any reference to text in KEUHN is to that machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: FRIESEN discloses: A system comprising: one or more processors (microcomputer in para. 41) configured to: monitor for operating temperature variations in a component (ΔT in para. 61-63), wherein each of the plurality of temperatures correspond to one of a plurality of different operating speeds of the power- generating system of the vehicle (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66); detect a first operating temperature variation at a first operating speed of the plurality of different operating speeds; detect a second operating temperature variation at a second operating speed of the plurality of different operating speeds (As discussed in the process laid out in para. 61-73, velocity and temperature are constantly changing and constantly measured. Para. 63 states that the change in temperature ΔTb is constantly measured. A predicted change in temperature ΔTp is calculated using the actual change in temperature and a factor c representing the change in velocity, ΔTp= cΔTb), identify the temperatures of the first component increasing between the first operating speed and the second operating speed while temperatures of the previous measurements do not increase or increase by a smaller difference between the first operating speed and the second operating speed (This is the situation shown in FIG. 7 as explained in para. 76-79.); and reduce power transmitted through the component of a power generating system (automatic braking in para. 80).
FRIESEN discloses using various thresholds, but does not teach comparing measurements of one component to measurements of another component. FRIESEN is also aimed at predicting conditions that lead to damage and preventing them (para. 6-7) and so does not explicitly disclose identifying a deteriorated condition of a component.
KUEHN however does teach monitoring the components of vehicles (abstract) which can be trains (page 2 lines 36-39) and monitoring temperature (page 5 lines 61-67; page 9 lines 1-4) to determine component damage (page 9 lines 1-4) and teaches performing measurements on different elements of the same type and comparing them to one another (page 3 lines 23-34). KUEHN teaches that this can diagnose damaged components (page 3 lines 30-37). KUEHN also teaches using comparison of changes in temperature measurements between two components to determine damage (temperature gradient used to determine the condition of a bearing on page 8 line 66-page 9 line 4; page 4 lines 28-32; page 7 lines 35-39).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the measurements of FRIESEN and compare them to the same measurements on other components in the system having the same structure because “the determination and comparison of measured values, which are determined at different times on different or the same elements or entities, enable an assessment of changes. Sudden changes, which may be due to damage due to a special event, can be determined by repeatedly taking samples at short intervals (e.g. seconds and less) and comparing the samples with each other” (page 3 lines 30-34 of KUEHN).
Regarding claim 2: FRIESEN discloses: the first component is a first axle (para. 43, 46), and the one or more additional components are one or more additional axles of a vehicle that is the power-generating system (This would be obvious based on KEUHN as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.).
Regarding claim 3: FRIESEN discloses: the one or more processors are configured to identify the operating temperature variations based on temperature sensor outputs (para. 41-42) measured at the plurality of different operating speeds (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66) of the power-generating system.
Regarding claim 4: FRIESEN discloses: the one or more processors are configured to identify the operating temperature variation responsive to a first temperature of the first component changing by a greater amount (FRIESEN uses predetermined thresholds as discussed in para. 77) than one or more additional temperatures of the one or more additional components between the plurality of different operating speeds of the system (Comparing the measured values of the components to each other instead of to a predetermined threshold is obvious based on the teaching of KEUHN as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.).
Regarding claim 5: FRIESEN discloses: the power-generating system is a vehicle (para. 21).
Regarding claim 6: FRIESEN discloses: the one or more processors are configured to automatically control operation of the first component by reducing an amount of power generated by the power-generating system responsive to identifying the operating temperature variation (automatic braking in para. 80).
Regarding claim 7: FRIESEN discloses: A method comprising: monitoring for operating temperature variations in a component of a power-generating system of a vehicle based on a plurality of temperatures (ΔT in para. 61-62), wherein the plurality of temperatures associated with the component correspond to a plurality of different speeds of the power-generating system of the vehicle (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66); detecting a first operating temperature variation at a first operating speed of the plurality of different operating speeds; detecting a second operating temperature variation at a second operating speed of the plurality of different operating speeds (As discussed in the process laid out in para. 61-73, velocity and temperature are constantly changing and constantly measured. Para. 63 states that the change in temperature ΔTb is constantly measured. A predicted change in temperature ΔTp is calculated using the actual change in temperature and a factor c representing the change in velocity, ΔTp= cΔTb); and reducing power transmitted through a first component of a power-generating system (autobraking in para. 80).
FRIESEN discloses using various thresholds, but does not teach comparing measurements of one component to measurements of another component. FRIESEN is also aimed at predicting conditions that lead to damage and preventing them (para. 6-7) and so does not explicitly disclose identifying a deteriorated condition of a component.
KUEHN however does teach monitoring the components of vehicles (abstract) which can be trains (page 2 lines 36-39) and monitoring temperature (page 5 lines 61-67; page 9 lines 1-4) to determine component damage (page 9 lines 1-4) and teaches performing measurements on different elements and comparing them to one another (page 3 lines 23-34). KUEHN teaches that this can diagnose damaged components (page 3 lines 30-37). KUEHN also teaches using comparison of changes in temperature measurements between two components to determine damage (temperature gradient used to determine the condition of a bearing on page 8 line 66-page 9 line 4; page 4 lines 28-32; page 7 lines 35-39).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the measurements of FRIESEN and compare them to the same measurements on other components in the system having the same structure because “the determination and comparison of measured values, which are determined at different times on different or the same elements or entities, enable an assessment of changes. Sudden changes, which may be due to damage due to a special event, can be determined by repeatedly taking samples at short intervals (e.g. seconds and less) and comparing the samples with each other” (page 3 lines 30-34 of KUEHN).
Regarding claim 8: FRIESEN discloses: receiving outputs from one or more temperature sensors (para. 41-42) and identifying the operating temperature variation based on the outputs (para. 41-42).
Regarding claim 9: FRIESEN discloses: the outputs received from the one or more temperature sensors include temperatures measured at the plurality of different operating speeds of the power-generating system (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66).
Regarding claim 10: FRIESEN discloses: the power transmitted through the first component is reduced by reducing torque applied to rotate a first axle of a vehicle that is the power-generating system (Braking as discloses in para. 80 also includes letting the engine wind down which will reduce the torque applied to the axles.).
Regarding claim 11: FRIESEN discloses: identifying the operating temperature variation responsive to a first temperature of the first component changing by a greater amount (FRIESEN uses predetermined thresholds as discussed in para. 77) than one or more additional temperatures of the one or more additional components between the plurality of different operating speeds of the power-generating system (Comparing the measured values of the components to each other instead of to a predetermined threshold is obvious based on the teaching of KEUHN as discussed in the rejection of claim 7.).
Regarding claim 12: FRIESEN discloses: one or more processors are configured to automatically control operation of the first component by reducing an amount of power generated by the power-generating system responsive to identifying the operating temperature variation (automatic braking in para. 80).
Regarding claims 13, 16, and 17: FRIESEN discloses: A system comprising: one or more sensors configured to measure temperatures (para. 41-42) of different axles of a vehicle (Para. 43; Please note that the bearings supporting the axle can be considered a part of the axle as discussed in the Terminology section above.); and one or more processors (microcomputer in para. 41) configured to obtain the operating temperatures that are measured and to analyze the temperatures of the different axles (Analysis is shown in para. 61-76. Please note that the bearings supporting the axle can be considered a part of the axle as discussed in the Terminology section above.) for identifying a deteriorated condition of at least one of the axles (para. 20, 77-80), wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure the operating temperatures of the axles at different speeds of the vehicle (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66), and implement a responsive action (warning signal or alarm as discussed in para. 77-80) associated with the deteriorated condition based on the comparison of operating temperatures (warning signal or alarm as discussed in para. 77-80). FRIESEN also discloses that the vehicle can be a train (para. 21), thus meeting the limitations of claim 17.
FRIESEN discloses using various thresholds, but does not teach comparing measurements of one component to measurements of another component.
KUEHN however does teach monitoring the components of vehicles (abstract) which can be trains (page 2 lines 36-39) and monitoring temperature (page 5 lines 61-67; page 9 lines 1-4) to determine component damage (page 9 lines 1-4) and teaches performing measurements on different elements and comparing them to one another (page 3 lines 23-34). KUHN also teaches that the vehicle can be an automobile (page 3 lines 45-49), thus meeting the limitations of claim 16.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the measurements of FRIESEN and compare them to the same measurements on other components in the system having the same structure because “the determination and comparison of measured values, which are determined at different times on different or the same elements or entities, enable an assessment of changes. Sudden changes, which may be due to damage due to a special event, can be determined by repeatedly taking samples at short intervals (e.g. seconds and less) and comparing the samples with each other” (page 3 lines 30-34 of KUEHN).
Regarding claim 14: FRIESEN discloses: the one or more processors are configured to identify the deteriorated condition of at least one of the axles responsive to the temperature of a first axle of the axles changing by a different amount (FRIESEN uses predetermined thresholds as discussed in para. 77) than the temperatures of at least a second axle of the axles between the different speeds of the vehicle (Comparing the measured values of the components to each other instead of to a predetermined threshold is obvious based on the teaching of KEUHN as discussed in the rejection of claim 13.).
Regarding claim 15: FRIESEN discloses: the one or more processors are configured to examine the temperatures to identify the deteriorated condition of at least one of the axles responsive to the temperature of a first axle changing by a greater amount (FRIESEN uses predetermined thresholds as discussed in para. 77) between the different speeds of the vehicle (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66) than the temperature of at least a second axle between the different speeds of the vehicle (Comparing the measured values of the components to each other instead of to a predetermined threshold is obvious based on the teaching of KEUHN as discussed in the rejection of claim 13.).
Regarding claim 18: FRIESEN discloses: the one or more processors are configured to automatically control operation of the at least one of the axles responsive to identifying the deteriorated condition (automatic braking in para. 80).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRIESEN and KEUHN in view of BARONE (US 2007/0208841).
Regarding claims 13: FRIESEN discloses: A system comprising: one or more sensors configured to measure temperatures (para. 41-42) of different components of a vehicle (para.37, 43); and one or more processors (microcomputer in para. 41) configured to obtain the temperatures that are measured and to monitor for temperature variations of the different axles (Analysis is shown in para. 61-76.) wherein the temperature variations indicate a deteriorated condition of at least one of the axles (para. 20, 77-80), wherein the temperature variations are determined based on a plurality of temperatures associated with the axle (para. 61-73) wherein each of the plurality of temperatures associated with the axle correspond to different speeds of the vehicle (change in velocity during ΔT as discussed in para. 63-66).
FRIESEN discloses measuring the temperature of bearings supporting the axle (1 supporting 2 in FIG. 1), and also discloses that other components in thermal contact with the bearings can be used to monitor temperature (para. 37). FRIESEN explicitly names one of these components as the bearing cover 6. Therefore, in a narrow interpretation (see Terminology section above) of the word “axle” (one that does not include the supporting bearings) FRIESEN does not explicitly teach measuring the temperature of the axle.
BARONE however does explicitly teach measuring the temperature of the axles (138 in FIG. 5) of a railway car (120 in FIG. 1) with a temperature array (155 in FIG. 5) which includes a temperature sensor (para. 96) in direct contact with the axle (para. 96).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a sensor mounted with direct thermal contact to the axle as taught by BARONE for the temperature monitoring of FRIESEN because the “intimate contact with the wheel axle assembly yields superior performance” as discussed in para 243 of BARONE. Furthermore, some locations where a temperature sensor could be mounted are difficult (para. 5, 38, 57 of FRIESEN), therefore the end cap sensor mounting of BARONE shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, would be particularly convenient for installation and maintenance due to its exterior, easily-accessed location.
FRIESEN discloses using various thresholds, but does not teach comparing measurements of one component to measurements of another component.
KUEHN however does teach monitoring the components of vehicles (abstract) which can be trains (page 2 lines 36-39) and monitoring temperature (page 5 lines 61-67; page 9 lines 1-4) to determine component damage (page 9 lines 1-4) and teaches performing measurements on different elements and comparing them to one another (page 3 lines 23-34).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the measurements of FRIESEN and compare them to the same measurements on other components in the system having the same structure because “the determination and comparison of measured values, which are determined at different times on different or the same elements or entities, enable an assessment of changes. Sudden changes, which may be due to damage due to a special event, can be determined by repeatedly taking samples at short intervals (e.g. seconds and less) and comparing the samples with each other” (page 3 lines 30-34 of KUEHN).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRIESEN and KEUHN in view of MIAN.
Regarding claims 19 and 20: FRIESEN discloses that the invention is for preventing damage (para. 34), but does not disclose that their responsive action (para. 32-33) is associated with at least one of a repair, an inspection, and a replacement of the first component, or combinations thereof.
MIAN however teaches using temperature monitoring (abstract, para. 42, 62-63) to detect flaws or problems with the components of a rail vehicle (para. 4, 10) with the analysis of this temperature data (para. 62-63) leading to a scheduled repair (para. 57-58) or inspection (para. 57). This responsive action is communicated to a local rail shop (11B in FIG. 3) or other remote system (11C), thus meeting the limitations of claim 20.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the scheduling of a repair at a local repair shop (para. 58 of MIAN) in combination with the alarms and warnings of FRIESEN (para. 32-33) so that the repair shop can be make preparations for the arrival of a defective vehicle (para. 58 of MIAN), thus reducing equipment downtime and making rail operations more efficient.
Response to Amendment/Argument
A note on references to KEUHN: The only translation of KEUHN on record is dated 10 May 2024 and has page numbers and line numbers. The Applicant has referred to paragraph numbers in KEUHN and it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to this translation or to a different one. The Examiner has attempted to use the referenced text and reply with citations to the translation of record.
The Applicant has argued (page 7-8 of the Response) that FRIESEN does not teach a system that constantly measures temperature and therefore cannot be relied upon to teach a system that measures at a plurality of different operating speeds. The Applicant has further pointed to para. 69-71 of FRIESEN to show that FRIESEN explicitly contemplates a scenario where the change in velocity is zero. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The fact that para. 69-71 explicitly make provisions for when the vehicle changes speed, and FIGS. 6 and 7 (with accompanying explanation in para. 73-76) show the behavior of the system when the vehicle changes speed, means that the system of FRIESEN monitors temperature variations between first and second speeds in the course of normal operations. Furthermore, the case where Δtb= Δtp (i.e. when velocity does not change) is called a “special case” in para. 63-65 showing that a changing velocity is normal. The Applicant argues that the system of FRIESEN does not constantly measure temperature, but rather measures over a time interval. This explanation does not make sense in the context of what the system of FRIESEN is designed to accomplish. FRIESEN is a system for monitoring wheel bearing temperature in order to predict a future temperature before it reaches a critical temperature at which damage can occur to the bearings (para. 6-7). Therefore it is a constant monitoring system. For the system of FRIESEN to work as the Applicant suggests (only at a constantly velocity), it would have to be shut off when the train begins operation. Then it would be turned on when the train reaches its traveling speed. Then it would be turned off every time the train changes velocity, such as when it went around a sharp bend, until it returns to its previous exact traveling speed. This does not make sense for a temperature monitoring system intended to prevent damage. The Applicant states that the “velocity need not change at all,” (emphasis in original) but this is not how one skilled in the art would understand the regular operation of a train. A train is a vehicle that will change its speed during normal operation. The Applicant has stated that the system of FRIESEN is “episodic and computational, not continuous and diagnostic.” This is incorrect. The system of FRIESEN monitors bearing temperature in order to predict if the temperature is going to reach a critical temperature so that measures can be taken before this happens in order to prevent damage (para. 6-7). It is therefore diagnostic, and it does not make sense that a damage-preventing diagnostic system that relies on permanently installed hardware (the temperature sensor on the bearing) would intermittently be turned on and off. Therefore, the system would operate continuously.
The Applicant has argued (page 9 of the Response) that KUEHN teaches away from taking measurements at different operating speeds because KUEHN states that the temperature measurements must be done in “comparable operating states.” This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The Applicant is arguing the opposite of what KUEHN’s system accomplishes. The entire paragraph of KUEHN (page 3 lines 23-29) that discusses “comparable operating states” recites (emphasis added):
The monitoring is adaptive both when measuring values on different elements or groups as well as when measuring values at different times on the same element or group, i.e. it adapts to the circumstances of the moment (e.g. for rail vehicles: speed, condition of rail and Wheel tires). This is based on the fact that the analysis is not based on static reference values, but rather on comparison values that are taken in comparable operating states. The simultaneous determination of measured values takes place per se in comparable operating states. When averaging over longer intervals is a prerequisite that this takes place under comparable operating conditions. The invention is therefore particularly suitable for monitoring machines, systems, vehicles and structures or their elements which are exposed to different operating states.
This means that, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, the comparison values of KUEHN are taken at “comparable operating states” because they are taken on similar components that are performing the same operation on the same vehicle and are therefore “per se in comparable operating states.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, LAURA MARTIN can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights