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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Office Action filed October 22, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15-18, and 20-21, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on German Patent Application No. DE10 2019 108 066.5, filed March 28, 2019.
Response to Amendment
The examiner recognizes that all original rejections made under 112(b) previously stated for the original claim 5 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Non-Final Office Action of July 25, 2025, fails to establish a prima facie case because the teachings Venkatasubramanian are drawn solely to an ECP braking system being an improvement to manually controlled braking systems.
While Examiner agrees that some of the teachings of Venkatasubramanian describe using an ECP braking system as an improvement over manual braking system, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that there is no motivation to modify Kull with other features that are present within Venkatasubramanian. Specifically, as now described in the updated rejection which follows below, Venkatasubramanian teaches an enhanced method for improving upon the adaptive braking abilities of existing ECP braking systems. Therefore, Venkatasubramanian is able to modify the ECP braking system of Kull in a logical way that would be obvious to a POSITA.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15-18, and 20-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kull (US 20130297163; already of record), in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 20190168728; hereinafter Venkatasubramanian, already of record), and further in view of Martin (US 20200079343; already of record).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kull teaches
A system for providing and/or monitoring operating data of a compressed air supply in a rail vehicle, (Kull: Abstract) the system comprising:
a detector, for capturing the operating data of the compressed air supply; (Kull: Paragraph [0027]-[0028], [0031], Fig. 2 (Element 18); “Any known computing device and/or interface can be used in connection with, integrated with, or in replacement of the local controller 20. Further, and as also shown in FIG. 2, some or all of the air brake data 22 (and/or the raw data from the sensor 18) may be stored in a local database 26, which may be resident on or present at the local controller 20.”)
Kull does not teach
...
an Internet of Things interface configured to convert the captured operating data into an electrical signal for subsequent transmission;
a communication device for wirelessly transmitting the electrical signal including captured operating data,
wherein the communication device is configured to instigate a pre-processing of the captured operating data via analyzing, filtering, or compressing of the captured operating data, and to trigger transmission of the pre-processed operating data to the external storage device for processing by an external processing device in response to the pre-processed operating data being above an operating-data-specific threshold value; and
an external storage device for receiving and storing the pre-processed operating data from the communication device.
However in the same field of endeavor, Venkatasubramanian teaches
...
an Internet of Things interface configured to convert the captured operating data into an electrical signal for subsequent transmission; (Venkatasubramanian: Paragraph [0091], [0145]; “In a preferred and non-limiting embodiment, example, or aspect, the use of any configuration of wired and/or wireless communication link 48 that enables HEU 26 to receive data and/or information from communication link 48 is envisioned, including, for example, the IoT.”; [0184]; Sensors and other systems connected with an Internet of Things interface must always convert data into electrical signals in order to be able to transmit data through the IoT network.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compressed air monitoring system of Kull, in view of Martin, with the Internet of Things interface of Venkatasubramanian for the benefit of enhanced adaptive braking in an ECP system. (Venkatasubramanian: Paragraph [0012]-[0014])
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, does not teach
...
a communication device for wirelessly transmitting the electrical signal including captured operating data,
wherein the communication device is configured to instigate a pre-processing of the captured operating data via analyzing, filtering, or compressing of the captured operating data, and to trigger transmission of the pre-processed operating data to the external storage device for processing by an external processing device in response to the pre-processed operating data being above an operating-data-specific threshold value; and
an external storage device for receiving and storing the pre-processed operating data from the communication device.
However in the same field of endeavor, Martin teaches
...
a communication device (Kull: Fig. 2 (Element 24)) for wirelessly transmitting the electrical signal including captured operating data, (Martin: Paragraph [0085]; “Each CMU 101 can comprise a processor; a power source such as a battery, energy harvester, or internal power-generating capability; a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device such as a global positioning system (“GPS”) receiver, Wi-Fi, satellite, and/or cellular capability; a wireless communications capability for maintaining the railcar-based network 105; a wireless communication capability for communicating with the train-based network 107;”) (Kull: Paragraph [0015])
wherein the communication device is configured to instigate a pre-processing of the captured operating data (Martin: Paragraph [0141]; “When the trigger is activated, the analog pressure sensor immediately is activated to sample at a fast rate.”) via analyzing, filtering, or compressing of the captured operating data, (Martin: Paragraph [0046], [0080], [0141]; “This information is combined by the WSN 104 into a message that contains the exact time of the trigger; and several pressure readings obtained immediately after the trigger activation at a predetermined and known sampling rate. The message is sent by the WSN 104 to the associated CMU 101 or other computing device, which forwards the message to the PWG 102 or another computing device for further analysis, reporting, and alerting.”) and to trigger transmission of the pre-processed operating data to the external storage device for processing by an external processing device (Martin: Paragraph [0089]; “Each CMU 101 is capable of receiving data and/or alarms from its associated WSNs 104; drawing inferences from the data or alarms regarding the performance of the railcar 103 and its braking system 100; and transmitting the data and alarm information to the PWG 102 or other remote receiver.”) in response to the pre-processed operating data being above an operating-data-specific threshold value; (Martin: Paragraph [0082]-[0084], [0141]; “The pressure switch has a predetermined threshold that will trigger a reading, i.e., an electrical output, in response to an increase or decrease in air pressure above, or below a predetermined threshold. ... This information is combined by the WSN 104 into a message that contains the exact time of the trigger; and several pressure readings obtained immediately after the trigger activation at a predetermined and known sampling rate.” When the pressure goes above or below a certain threshold, the system is triggered to activate the analog pressure sensor and the readings are compiled into a message to be sent to a “wireless sensor node” (WSN) which then sends said data to a “communication management unit(s)” (CMU) which forwards the data to a “powered wireless gateway” (PWG) that may be off-board the train (i.e. at a railyard). Otherwise, the sensor is not activated and no readings are sent to the WSN.) and
an external storage device for receiving and storing the pre-processed operating data from the communication device. (Martin: Paragraph [0080]; “The system 10 includes a combination of sensors and signal processing equipment that allow the system 10...to communicate information regarding the status of brake system 100 to sources within, and external to the train consist 109.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the air supply monitoring system of Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, with the triggering of an air pressure sensor processing and communication based on air pressure thresholds of Martin for the benefit of increasing efficiency when testing railcar brakes. (Martin: Paragraph [0004])
Regarding Claim 2,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the communication device is a mobile radio transceiver configured to transmit and receive according to a mobile radio standard or WLAN standard. (Kull: Paragraph [0050]; The system communicates with the remote database using a data radio which is equipped onto each rail car.)
Regarding Claim 3,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the storage device is configured to be connected to a computing device (Kull: Fig. 4 (Element 40)) with which the stored operating data is processed and/or evaluated and/or forwarded. (Kull: Paragraph [0054])
Regarding Claim 5,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 4, wherein the Internet of Things interface is embedded into control electronics of the compressed air supply. (Venkatasubramanian: Paragraph [0115]-[0116])
The motivation to combine Kull, Venkatasubramanian, and Martin, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the external storage device is a data cloud. (Kull: Paragraph [0031], [0047]; The database that the system communicates wirelessly with can be stored on a server in at “central dispatch.”)
Regarding Claim 9,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the external storage device and/or the computing device is/are configured to be connected to at least one mobile terminal device and/or computer interface. (Kull: Paragraph [0054]; The terminal may be a workstation connected to the central controller (40) or may be one of various devices capable of wireless communication and display including, but not limited to, a smart phone which is known to be a mobile terminal.)
Regarding Claim 10,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein reference data for a target operating state and/or an incorrect operating state of the compressed air supply (Kull: Paragraph [0049]; There are two levels defined as threshold air leak levels. The “mid leak” level in particular is a reference threshold level that, when surpassed, indicates an incorrect operating state of the brake.) are stored in the storage device and/or the computing device and/or the communication device, (Kull: Paragraph [0045], FIG. 2 (Elements 20 and 26); The system consists of a local controller and access to a database (either on-board or remote) which stores reference data including safe train operation data so that the operator may confirm that all components of the train are operating within safe parameters.) and wherein the storage device and/or the computing device and/or the communication device is/are configured to compare the reference data with the received operating data. (Kull: Paragraph [0053]; The air brake monitoring system may use a local controller, on-board controller, and/or the central controller for processing the air leak data received from the sensors to determine whether the “low leak” or “mid leak” conditions have been reached.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 10, wherein the storage device and/or the computing device and/or the communication device is/are further configured to identify a target operating state or incorrect operating state of the compressed air supply based on the comparison of the reference data and the received operating data. (Kull: Paragraph [0049]; The system has a “mid leak” measurement condition which acts as a reference threshold for an allowable level of air leak from the compressed air supply. Thee system constantly monitors the air leak from the air supply and compares it to the “mid leak” level. If the level of air leak reaches or surpasses the mid leak level then the system raises alarm has the state brake system is now in an incorrect operating state.)
Regarding Claim 12,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
A compressed air supply for generating compressed air for a rail vehicle, (Kull: Paragraph [0006]) the compressed air supply comprising a system as recited in claim 1 for providing and/or monitoring operating data of the compressed air supply. (Kull: Paragraph [0013]-[0014])
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15,
Kull, in view of Venkatasubramanian, and further in view of Martin, teaches
The system of claim 6, wherein the Internet of Things interface (Venkatasubramanian: Paragraph [0089]) is configured to analyze the captured operated data using pattern recognition. (Venkatasubramanian: Paragraph [0187]; The system utilizes stored prior data from the sensors data to determine patterns and predict braking abilities of individual cars of the train and set what the braking should be.)
The motivation to combine Kull, Venkatasubramanian, and Martin, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is analogous to Claim 6 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 10 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is analogous to Claim 11 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 11.
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663