DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed April 28th, 2026. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a ratio of the actual torque acting on each of the wheel and the target torque” (emphasis added) in line 13 of the claim which is improper grammar and likely a typo where applicant missed pluralizing the word “wheel” when amending the claim;
Claim 1 recites “to control the amount of adhesion-increasing agent dispensed by each of the two device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent” (emphasis added) in lines 14-15 of the claim which is improper grammar and likely a typo where applicant missed pluralizing the word “device” when amending the claim;
Claim 5 is marked as “Previously Presented” despite containing amendments.
Claim 8 is marked as “Currently Amended” and the only amendment marked is “detecting wheel speed and/or rotational wheel speed and wheel acceleration of a wheel of the rail” (emphasis added), however this limitation was previously presented back in the claims filed December 30th, 2025;
Claim 12 is marked as “Currently Amended” however the claim is identical to the claim 12 filed December 30th, 2025 and has no amendments annotated, thus claim 12 should be marked “Previously Presented”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: measuring unit in claims 7 and 14 and calculating unit in claims 1-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 14 recite limitations that invoke 112(f) but lack sufficient structure recited in the specification to perform the functions of the units claimed. The measuring unit and calculation unit recited lack any indication of what these units are whether explicitly or by example. Therefore claims 1-5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 112(a).
Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 and thus is rejected under 112(a) due to its dependency.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 112(b) because claim limitations “measuring unit” and “calculating unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest any of the units come to having structure is the data transfer unit of claims 4 and 5 which the specification in page 5 paragraph 0028 says can, for example, be a data bus. This, however is insufficient for a showing of structure as it implies there are other things the data transfer unit can be and claim 4 specifically recite that the data transfer unit being a data bus is merely a preferred embodiment and it does not have to be one. The measuring device, measuring units, and calculation units recited also lack any indication of what these units are whether explicitly or by example. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the “measuring unit” is any sensor capable of measuring the dispensing rate of the adhesion-increasing agent and that the calculating unit is a general purpose computer programmed to perform the calculations recited in the claims.
Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 thus is rejected under 112(b) due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "at least two wheel speed sensors, which measure the wheel speed or rotational wheel speed of each of the wheels” “at least two wheel acceleration sensors, which measures wheel acceleration of each of the wheels” and “at least two torque sensors, which measures torque acting on each of the wheels" which is unclear if each wheel has two speed, acceleration, and/or torque sensors or if there are at least two each of sensors for speed, acceleration, and/or torque and each speed/acceleration/torque sensor monitors a separate wheel. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that there are at least two wheel speed sensors which each monitors a separate wheel, at least two wheel acceleration sensors which each monitors a separate wheel, and/or at least two torque sensors which each monitors a separate wheel.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Skarie et al. (US Pub. No. 20020079707 A1), herein after Skarie, in further view of previously cited of record Folk; Heath (US Pub. No. 20100076660 A1), herein after Folk, in further view of previously cited of record Cooper et al. (US Pub. No. 20130173094 A1), herein after Cooper, in further view of Krohn et al. (US Patent No. 4849891 A), herein after Krohn, and further in view of previously cited of record Tione et al. (US Pub. No. 20210039615 A1), herein after Tione.
Regarding claim 1, Skarie teaches [a]n apparatus for controlling dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent of a rail vehicle, the apparatus comprising (Skarie: Para. 0017, teaching an apparatus for dispensing a traction enhancing material such as sand on a railroad track to control a train's traction with the track): at least two devices configured to dispense adhesion-increasing agent, which are each assigned to a respective wheel of a rail vehicle (Skarie: Para. 0041, teaching a valve for dispensing the sand; and Para. 0085, teaching that each wheel is monitored and each has their own valve assembly that is controlled according to the methods described); at least two wheel speed sensors, which measure the wheel speed or rotational wheel speed of each of the wheels (Skarie: Para. 0077, teaching the use of one or more wheel speed sensors to determine the speed that the wheels are spinning; and Para. 0098, teaching that there are wheel speed sensors assigned to the front wheels and the back wheels) and/or at least two wheel acceleration sensors, which measures wheel acceleration of each of the wheels (Skarie: Para. 0078, teaching the use of accelerometers which measure the acceleration of the vehicle and its speed; Para. 0082, teaching that the vehicle speed and acceleration from the accelerometers are compared to the wheel speed to determine if they match; and Para. 0085, teaching that each wheel is monitored and each has their own valve assembly that is controlled according to the methods described); a calculating unit configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of a ratio of the wheel speed or rotational wheel speed of each of the wheels and a speed of the rail vehicle... and to control the amount of adhesion-increasing agent dispensed by each of the two device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent based on changes in at least one of the ratios at each of the respective wheels (Skarie: Para. 0075, teaching a controller that takes inputs from the various sensors to perform the various calculations of the invention; Para. 0082, teaching that the wheel speed and ground speed are compared to determine if they match while the wheel is stopped and, depending on the comparison, releasing sand to decelerate the train, and as the wheel and ground speed has changed, repeating the process to account for the new wheel speed and ground speed till the wheel speed and ground speed matches; and Para. 0086, teaching that the adjustment of the wheel speed and ground speed also applies to situations where the wheels are spinning excessively).
Skarie is silent to at least two torque sensors, which measures torque acting on each of the wheels; a calculating unit configured to communicate with the at least two devices via a data bus and that the calculating unit is configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of... ratio of the wheel acceleration of each of the wheels and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle and the ratio of the actual torque acting on each of the wheel and the target torque.
In a similar field, Folk teaches at least two torque sensors, which measures torque acting on each of the wheels (Folk: Para. 0021, teaching the use of multiple torque and wheel speed sensors at each wheel to determine the actual torque of the wheel when slippage occurs) for the benefit of determining how to control the slippage of the wheels.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sensors for monitoring the wheel speed and acceleration at each wheel of a train from Skarie to also monitor the torque applied to the wheels, as taught by Folk, for the benefit of determining how to control the slippage of the wheels.
Skarie in view of Folk are silent to a calculating unit configured to communicate with the at least two devices via a data bus and that the calculating unit is configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of... ratio of the wheel acceleration of each of the wheels and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle and the ratio of the actual torque acting on each of the wheel and the target torque.
In a similar field, Cooper teaches a calculating unit configured to communicate with the at least two devices via a data bus (Cooper: Para. 0022 and 0026, teaching that control units for controlling the dispensing of sand on a railroad track monitor the amount of sand each respective control unit used and the control units are in communication with each other on their usage and remaining amount of sand) for the benefit of ensuring a consistent level of wear on the wheels and usage of sand across the wheels of the train.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand dispersal system at each wheel of a train from Skarie in view of Folk with the communication between each controller of the sand dispersing of each wheel, as taught by Cooper, for the benefit of ensuring a consistent level of wear on the wheels and usage of sand across the wheels of the train.
Skarie in view of Folk in view further of Cooper are silent to the calculating unit is configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of... ratio of the wheel acceleration of each of the wheels and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle and the ratio of the actual torque acting on each of the wheel and the target torque.
In a similar field, Krohn teaches a calculating unit configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of... ratio of the wheel acceleration of each of the wheels and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle... and to control the amount of [deceleration] based on changes in at least one of the ratios at each of the respective wheels (Krohn: Page 8 col. 5 lines 51-68, teaching comparing the acceleration experienced by each wheel to the acceleration of the vehicle and controlling deceleration at each wheel accordingly) for the benefit of reducing slippage of the wheels.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand dispersal system at each wheel of a train based on the speed and acceleration of the train and the speed of its wheels from Skarie in view of Folk in view further of Cooper to also consider the acceleration of the wheels, as taught by Krohn, for the benefit of reducing slippage of the wheels.
Skarie in view of Folk in view further of Cooper in further view of Krohn are silent to the calculating unit is configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of... the ratio of the actual torque acting on each of the wheel and the target torque.
In a similar field, Tione teaches a calculating unit configured to... ascertain a calculation result in the form of... the ratio of the actual torque acting on each of the wheel and the target torque, and to control the amount of adhesion-increasing agent dispensed by each of the two device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent based on changes in at least one of the ratios at each of the respective wheels (Tione: Para. 0062, teaching that the difference between a desired torque and the actual torque being applied by the wheels and adjusting the amount of adhesion material dispensed accordingly) for the benefit of improving the responsiveness of the dispersion of adhesion material based on the dynamics of the vehicle and its wheels.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand dispersal system at each wheel of a train based on the speed and acceleration of the train and its wheels from Skarie in view of Folk in view further of Cooper in further view of Krohn to also adjust the dispersion based on the torque applied by the wheel and the desired torque, as taught by Tione, for the benefit of improving the responsiveness of the dispersion of adhesion material based on the dynamics of the vehicle and its wheels.
Regarding claim 2, Skarie, Folk, Cooper, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 1, and Skarie goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 1, wherein the calculating unit is configured to determine the ratio of the wheel speed of at least one further wheel and the speed of the rail vehicle and/or the ratio of the wheel acceleration of at least one further wheel and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle and/or the ratio of the actual wheel torque acting on the wheel and the target wheel torque of at least one further wheel, and to take this calculation result into consideration for controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by the device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent (Skarie: Para. 0085, teaching that the control of the dispensing of sand based on the vehicle speed and wheel speed can be done for each wheel of the train; and Para. 0098, teaching that the wheels are monitored for if their conditions are matching).
Regarding claim 3, Skarie, Folk, Cooper, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 1, and Skarie goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data of a plurality of wheels are used for controlling each device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent (Skarie: Para. 0085, teaching that the control of the dispensing of sand based on the vehicle speed and wheel speed can be done for each wheel of the train; and Para. 0098, teaching that the wheels are monitored for if their conditions are matching).
Regarding claim 4, Skarie, Folk, Cooper, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 1, and Cooper goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data bus is configured to enable communication by the calculating unit with other calculating units to communicate and also to exchange measurement results and calculation results (Cooper: Para. 0022 and 0026, teaching that control units for controlling the dispensing of sand on a railroad track monitor the amount of sand each respective control unit used and the control units are in communication with each other on their usage and remaining amount of sand).
Regarding claim 5, Skarie, Folk, Cooper, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 4, and Cooper goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 4, wherein the maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent is set for the at least two devices for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, and, in response to at least one calculating unit determines that the dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent calculated for the respective device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is above a set maximum dispensing rate for adhesion-increasing agent for the respective device, the calculating unit is configured to communicate the deviation between the calculated dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent and the maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent by way of the data bus to another calculating unit, wherein the other calculating unit is configured to correspondingly supplement the deviation of the dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent ascertained by this other calculating unit for the other device respectively for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, as long as the maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent of this device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is not exceeded (Cooper: Para. 0030, teaching that the separate control units communicate with a master control unit that monitors the various resource levels of sand that each control unit has left and based on the required usage controls the usage of control units that have more sand available).
Regarding claim 6, Skarie, Folk, Cooper, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 1, and Skarie goes on to further teach [t]he apparatus of claim 1, wherein upper and/or lower limit values are specified for controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by at least one device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, and, in response to the limits being exceeded or not reached, the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by the device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is increased or reduced (Skarie: Para. 0059, teaching that the prior art controls the limit of how much sand is dispensed by controlling how much sand is put into a hopper that is used for dispensing sand; and Para. 0088, teaching that the invention monitors the level of sand in the hopper and increases the amount if it is below a threshold).
Claims 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarie in view of Krohn in further view of Tione.
Regarding claim 8, Skarie teaches [a] method for controlling dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent of a rail vehicle, the method comprising (Skarie: Para. 0019, teaching a method for dispensing a traction enhancing material such as sand on a railroad track to control a train's traction with the track): detecting speed and acceleration in the longitudinal direction of a rail vehicle (Skarie: Para. 0078, teaching the use of accelerometers which measure the acceleration of the vehicle and its speed); detecting wheel speed and/or rotational wheel speed and wheel acceleration of a wheel of the rail vehicle and/or the actual wheel torque acting on the wheel (Skarie: Para. 0077, teaching the use of wheel speed sensor to determine the speed that the wheels are spinning; Para. 0078, teaching the use of accelerometers which measure the acceleration of the vehicle and its speed; and Para. 0082, teaching that the vehicle speed and acceleration from the accelerometers are compared to the wheel speed to determine if they match); determining a ratio of the wheel speed or rotational wheel speed of the wheel and the speed of the rail vehicle... controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by a device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent based on changes in the determined ratio of the wheel speed or rotational wheel speed of the wheel and the speed of the rail vehicle... (Skarie: Para. 0075, teaching a controller that takes inputs from the various sensors to perform the various calculations of the invention; Para. 0082, teaching that the wheel speed and ground speed are compared to determine if they match while the wheel is stopped and, depending on the comparison, releasing sand to decelerate the train, and as the wheel and ground speed has changed, repeating the process to account for the new wheel speed and ground speed till the wheel speed and ground speed matches; and Para. 0086, teaching that the adjustment of the wheel speed and ground speed also applies to situations where the wheels are spinning excessively).
Skarie is silent to the calculating unit is determining... a ratio of the wheel acceleration of the wheel and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle and a ratio of the actual torque acting on the wheel and the target torque, controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by a device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent based on... changes in the ratio of the wheel acceleration of the wheel and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle and changes in the ratio of the actual torque acting on the wheel and the target torque.
In a similar field, Krohn teaches detecting… wheel acceleration of a wheel of the rail vehicle and/or the actual wheel torque acting on the wheel (Herden: Para. 0034 and 0035, teaching dispensing of scattering material such as sand onto a train track based on the movements of the wheels as detected in a movement signal; and Para. 0051, teaching that the movement signal is based on the speed and acceleration of the wheels and it can be evaluated based on the speed of the rail vehicle); determining... a ratio of the wheel acceleration of the wheel and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle... controlling the [deceleration of the vehicle] based on... changes in the ratio of the wheel acceleration of the wheel and the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the rail vehicle... (Herden: Para. 0034 and 0035, teaching dispensing of scattering material such as sand onto a train track based on the movements of the wheels as detected in a movement signal; and Para. 0051, teaching that the movement signal is based on the speed and acceleration of the wheels and it can be evaluated based on the speed of the rail vehicle) for the benefit of reducing slippage of the wheels.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand dispersal system at each wheel of a train based on the speed and acceleration of the train and the speed of its wheels from Skarie to also consider the acceleration of the wheels, as taught by Krohn, for the benefit of reducing slippage of the wheels.
Skarie in view of Krohn are silent to determining... a ratio of the actual torque acting on the wheel and the target torque, controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by a device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent based on... changes in the ratio of the actual torque acting on the wheel and the target torque.
In a similar field, Tione teaches determining... a ratio of the actual torque acting on the wheel and the target torque, controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by a device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent based on... changes in the ratio of the actual torque acting on the wheel and the target torque (Tione: Para. 0062, teaching that the difference between a desired torque and the actual torque being applied by the wheels and adjusting the amount of adhesion material dispensed accordingly) for the benefit of improving the responsiveness of the dispersion of adhesion material based on the dynamics of the vehicle and its wheels.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand dispersal system at each wheel of a train based on the speed and acceleration of the train and its wheels from Skarie in view of Herden to also adjust the dispersion based on the torque applied by the wheel and the desired torque, as taught by Tione, for the benefit of improving the responsiveness of the dispersion of adhesion material based on the dynamics of the vehicle and its wheels.
Regarding claim 9, Skarie, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 8, and Skarie goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 8, wherein, during control of the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent, at least one further ratio of the determined ratios, which was determined for one or further wheels, is/are additionally used for controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by a device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent (Skarie: Para. 0085, teaching that the control of the dispensing of sand based on the vehicle speed and wheel speed can be done for each wheel of the train; and Para. 0098, teaching that the wheels are monitored for if their conditions are matching).
Regarding claim 10, Skarie, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 8, and Skarie goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 8, wherein a device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is provided for a specific number n of wheels (Skarie: Para. 0085, teaching that the control of the dispensing of sand based on the vehicle speed and wheel speed can be done for each wheel of the train; and Para. 0098, teaching that the wheels are monitored for if their conditions are matching).
Regarding claim 13, Skarie, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 8, and Skarie goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 8, wherein upper and/or lower limit values are specified for controlling the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by the device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agents, and, in response to these limits being exceeded or not reached, the dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent by the device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is increased or reduced (Skarie: Para. 0059, teaching that the prior art controls the limit of how much sand is dispensed by controlling how much sand is put into a hopper that is used for dispensing sand; and Para. 0088, teaching that the invention monitors the level of sand in the hopper and increases the amount if it is below a threshold).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarie in view of Krohn in further view of Tione as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cooper.
Regarding claim 11, Skarie, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 8, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 8, wherein at least two devices for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, which are provided on a rail vehicle, are connected to the data bus and exchange operational and control parameters.
In a similar field, Cooper teaches [t]he method of claim 8, wherein at least two devices for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, which are provided on a rail vehicle, are connected to the data bus and exchange operational and control parameters (Cooper: Para. 0022 and 0026, teaching that control units for controlling the dispensing of sand on a railroad track monitor the amount of sand each respective control unit used and the control units are in communication with each other on their usage and remaining amount of sand) for the benefit of ensuring a consistent level of wear on the wheels and usage of sand across the wheels of the train.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand dispersal system at each wheel of a train from Skarie in view of Krohn in further view of Tione with the communication between each controller of the sand dispersing of each wheel, as taught by Cooper, for the benefit of ensuring a consistent level of wear on the wheels and usage of sand across the wheels of the train.
Regarding claim 12, Skarie, Krohn, Tione, and Cooper remain as applied as in claim 11, and Cooper goes on to further teach [t]he method as claimed in claim 11, wherein a maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent is set respectively for the at least two devices for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, and, if a calculating unit finds that the dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent calculated for the respective device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent lies above the maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent, the deviation between the calculated dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent and the maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent is communicated by way of the data bus to another calculating unit, in order that the latter correspondingly supplements the deviation in addition to the dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent ascertained by this calculating unit for the other device respectively for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent, as long as the maximum dispensing rate of adhesion-increasing agent of this device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is not exceeded (Cooper: Para. 0030, teaching that the separate control units communicate with a master control unit that monitors the various resource levels of sand that each control unit has left and based on the required usage controls the usage of control units that have more sand available).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarie in view of Folk in further view of Cooper in view of Krohn in further view of Tione as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Bartling; Werner (US Pub. No. 20090254231 A1), herein after Bartling.
Regarding claim 7, Skarie, Folk, Cooper, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a measuring unit for measuring the current actual dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent of the device.
In a similar field, Bartling teaches [t]he apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a measuring unit for measuring the current actual dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent of the device (Bartling: Para. 0011 and 0013, teaching a device that measures the rate of dispensing of sand over time by a railroad vehicle) for the benefit of improving the ability of a train operator to maintain their train’s sand supply.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand delivery system from Skarie in view of Folk in further view of Cooper in view of Krohn in further view of Tione with the monitoring of the rate of the sand being dispersed, as taught by Bartling, for the benefit of improving the ability of a train operator to maintain their train’s sand supply.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarie in view of Krohn in further view of Tione as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bartling.
Regarding claim 14, Skarie, Krohn, and Tione remain as applied as in claim 8, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 8, wherein the current actual dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent of the device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is also measured by a measuring unit for measuring the dispensing of the adhesion-increasing agent.
In a similar field, Bartling teaches t]he method of claim 8, wherein the current actual dispensing of adhesion-increasing agent of the device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent is also measured by a measuring unit for measuring the dispensing of the adhesion-increasing agent (Bartling: Para. 0011 and 0013, teaching a device that measures the rate of dispensing of sand over time by a railroad vehicle) for the benefit of improving the ability of a train operator to maintain their train’s sand supply.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the sand delivery system from Skarie in view of Krohn in further view of Tione with the monitoring of the rate of the sand being dispersed, as taught by Bartling, for the benefit of improving the ability of a train operator to maintain their train’s sand supply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28th, 2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed April 28th, 2026 with respect to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-7 and 14 in light of the 112(f) interpretations have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 6 lines 4-20, filed April 28th, 2026) that the calculating unit has a structure of a computer as evidenced by the fact that it is in communication with other calculating units via a data bus and data buses allow computers to communicate. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the fact that data buses are used to allow computers to communicate does not provide sufficient definite support of what the structure of the calculating unit is as required by 112(f) as the calculating unit could just be a program in a computer rather than the calculating unit being the computer itself and that the computer with the calculating unit program is what uses the data bus to communicate.
Applicant contends (see page 6 lines 19-23, filed April 28th, 2026) that pages 5-7 of the Final Office Action dated March 11th, 2026 “does not indicate any particular issue remaining with the respect to the calculating unit”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that pages 5-7 of the Final Office Action dated March 11th, 2026 establishes that, among other things, the calculating unit is being interpreted under 112(f) and that the specification lacks sufficient structure for a calculating unit to determine if the calculating unit is a piece of hardware or software. The examiner notes that pages 23-24 of the Non-Final Office Action dated November 1st, 2025 does go into further detail of why the 112(f) interpretation of “calculating unit” and 112(a) and 112(b) rejections based on the 112(f) interpretation of “calculating unit” remain an issue.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 28th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 103 in view of Skarie in view of Cooper in view of Herden in further view of Tione, the 103 rejection of claim 7 in view of Skarie in view of Cooper in view of Herden in view of Tione in further view of Bartling, the 103 rejection of claims 8-10 and 13 in view of Skarie in further view of Herden in further view of Tione, the 103 rejection of claims 8-10 and 13 in view of Skarie in further view of Herden in further view of Tione, the 103 rejection of claims 11 and 12 in view of Skarie in further view of Herden in further view of Tione in further view of Cooper, the 103 rejection of claim 14 in view of Skarie in further view of Herden in further view of Bartling have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Skarie in view of Folk in further view of Cooper in view of Krohn in further view of Tione for claims 1-6, claim 7 in view of Skarie in view of Folk in further view of Cooper in view of Krohn in view of Tione in further view of Bartling, claims 8-10 and 13 in view of Skarie in further view of Krohn in further view of Tione, claims 11 and 12 in view of Skarie in further view of Krohn in further view of Tione in further view of Cooper, and claim 14 in view of Skarie in further view of Krohn in further view of Bartling.
Applicant contends (see page 7 lines 3-13, filed April 28th, 2026) that Skarie is deficient in teaching the regulated release rate of the adhesion-increasing agent via multiple devices at each wheel. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that paragraph 0085 of Skarie recites “The identical technique is applied to each wheel having a traction device 200 installed. The controller is capable of simultaneously monitoring wheel speeds and valve positions for a plurality of devices. Accordingly, the device 200 can function on one or more wheels simultaneously”. Therefore, the prior art of Skarie is sufficient for teaching each wheel possessing their own sensor and valve assembly which is sufficient for teaching “at least two device for dispensing adhesion-increasing agent” as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights