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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on December 23, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “evaluation device configured to output” in claims 1, 7, 9-11, 19, and 21-22, and “activation device configured to output” in claims 3-5 and 15-17.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, and 21-22 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9-11, 19, and 21-22, “evaluation device” is not described in the Specification as it fails to describe the structure of each unit as stated in the 112(f) claim interpretation. As a result it is unclear what structure is intended to be used for performing the claimed function.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 15-17, “activation device” is not described in the Specification as it fails to describe the structure of each unit as stated in the 112(f) claim interpretation. As a result it is unclear what structure is intended to be used for performing the claimed function.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and claims 12, 15-19, and 21-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a full description of the “detection device”. The description of the device as currently written omits a comma after the term “detection device”. Since the specific definition for this limitation has not been adequately described in the Specification, it is unclear to which specific detection device is associated with this limitation.
Claim limitations "evaluation device configured to output" and "activation device configured to output" invoke 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. 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 purposes of the prior art rejection below, the term “evaluation device” has been interpreted as “external device control line”, and the term “activation device” has been interpreted as “control device”.
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.
For the purposes of the prior art rejections below:
a. the term “evaluation device” has been interpreted to be an external device control line.
the term “activation device” has been interpreted to be a control device.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 15-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann (U.S. Patent No. 6166657) in view of Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8517432) and further in view of Worden, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9308921).
Regarding claim 1, Mann teaches: A diagnostic apparatus for a sand metering unit for a sanding system for a rail vehicle, the diagnostic apparatus comprising: a detection device comprising at least one reed sensor, proximity sensor, microswitch, triangulation rangefinder, or a permanent magnet with reed contacts the at least one reed sensor mounted relative to the permanent magnet, the detection device configured to detect at least of the sand metering unit of the sanding system (Col. 20, line 63 to Col. 21, lines 1-4: "In FIG. 17, sensor (130) is mounted within locomotive (132) (shown generally) wherein the sensor is oriented to detect the infrared radiation from-rail (134) [detector device - proximity sensor]. Accordingly, the temperature of the rail (134) is suitably determined and may be conveyed to the rail operator. The operator can then take appropriate action if it is determined that the temperature of the rail is below freezing and moisture is present so that sanding may be provided to ensure that traction is maintained [detection for the purpose of sand metering unit].")
and an evaluation device configured to output a sand metering error signal using the detection signal, which metering error signal indicates a malfunction of the sand metering unit if in response to the deviating from a target (Mann, Col. 21, lines 4-6: "Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal]." ; Mann Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].")
wherein the and the sand metering error signal is output (Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].").
Mann does not teach a position of a piston, and to provide a detection signal representing the detected position of the piston, detected position of the piston.
In a similar field of endeavor (sand dosing and block devices in rail vehicles), Bartling teaches: a position of a piston (Col. 2, lines 46-53: "…opened and closed by the movement of the lifting rod constituting the armature of the lifting magnet [position]. […] since the lifting piston, with every lift [position]" ; Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released [detected position signal of sand metering device].")
and to provide a detection signal representing the detected position of the piston, (Col. 2, lines 46-53: "…opened and closed by the movement of the lifting rod constituting the armature of the lifting magnet [position]. […] since the lifting piston, with every lift [position]" ; Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released [detected position signal of sand metering device].")
detected position of the piston (Col. 2, lines 46-53: "…opened and closed by the movement of the lifting rod constituting the armature of the lifting magnet [position]. […] since the lifting piston, with every lift [position]" ; Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released [detected position signal of sand metering device].")
detection signal is a position signal (Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released [detected position signal of sand metering device].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mann to include the teaching of Bartling based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of a sand dosing and blocking device for rail vehicles involving an electrically activated lifting magnet (Bartling Col. 2, lines 28-63).
The combination of Mann and Bartling does not teach only in response to the position signal deviating from an activation signal to being about a piston movement to a target position.
In a similar field of endeavor (traction effort systems for locomotives), Worden, et al. teaches: only in response to the position signal deviating from an activation signal to being about a piston movement to a target position (Col. 25, lines 39-43: "…actuator may be included to moving the plunger [piston] from the first position and the second position in response to signal from a controller [activation signal]. The signal may be based on one or more of elapsing time period, clog detection and measured slippage of the wheel on the rail [signal definition]." ; Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…slippage is detected or if system engagement is warranted there is also a signal for the operator to know that conditions exist calling for more traction [signal needed in response for deviation from normal conditions]. This information may allow for indication that a nozzle or nozzles are not aligned or are clogged, that a tractive media reservoir is empty, or that some condition exists that needs attention [deviation from activation signal – piston cannot move to target position because of clogged or empty media reservoir].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mann and Bartling to include the teaching of Worden, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of modifying the traction of a locomotive wheel contacting a surface (Worden, et al. Col. 1, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 3, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, having an activation device configured to output the activation signal which is configured to bring about a piston movement of the piston to the target position (Bartling control device (22), Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines 44-50: “The control device (22) receives the control signals from the vehicle via a corresponding control line (24). […] frequency-controlled actuation of the lifting magnet (6). […] lifting frequency”).
Regarding claim 4, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 3, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 3, wherein the activation device is configured to output the activation signal which is configured to bring about the piston movement of the piston to the target position, which is an opened open position of the piston (Bartling Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines 44-50: "The control device (22) receives the control signals from the vehicle via a corresponding control line (24). […] frequency-controlled actuation of the lifting magnet (6). […] lifting frequency" ; Bartling ‘432 Col. 6, lines 25-29: "…current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released.").
Regarding claim 5, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the activation device is configured to automatically output the activation signal in response to a manually effected, input actuation and/or in a pulse-width modulation interval (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-35: "…manual actuation of the driver of a vehicle" ; Bartling Col. 6, line 65 to Col. 7, lines 1-5: "the result is that a control signal assigned to the velocity--e.g. 0-10 V--is transmitted from the vehicle to the control device (22), and the control device (22) transmits the vehicle signal to the lifting magnet (6) as a frequency signal that is proportional to the velocity").
Regarding claim 6, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the detection device (Mann Col. 16, lines 62-65: "In FIG. 17, sensor (130) is mounted within locomotive (132) (shown generally) wherein the sensor is oriented to detect the infrared radiation from-rail (134) [detection device for locomotive].")
is configured to detect an open position of the piston as the position and to provide an open signal representing the open position and/or to detect a closed position of the piston and to provide a closed signal representing the closed position and/or to detect at least one center position of the piston between the open position and the closed position and to provide a center signal representing the center position (Bartling Col. 5, lines 15-22: “…current-free state of the lifting magnet (6), is taken automatically to the closing position”).
Regarding claim 7, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the detection device is configured to detect a delivery pressure of a sand delivery device of the sanding system as the parameter and to provide a delivery pressure signal representing the delivery pressure as the detection signal, (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-44: “…vehicle-side ON signal, and the lifting magnet (6) and the magnetic valve (27) of the compressed air line (26) are simultaneously activated by two separate control signals. By the alternating actuation of the lifting magnet (6) with the desired lifting frequency, the sand flow is released and, with simultaneous activation of the conveying device, the sand is transported by means of compressed air via the compressed air connection (25)”)
is configured to output a pressure error signal using the delivery pressure signal in response to the delivery pressure deviating from a target delivery pressure (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-44: “…vehicle-side ON signal, and the lifting magnet (6) and the magnetic valve (27) of the compressed air line (26) are simultaneously activated by two separate control signals. By the alternating actuation of the lifting magnet (6) with the desired lifting frequency, the sand flow is released and, with simultaneous activation of the conveying device, the sand is transported by means of compressed air via the compressed air connection (25)”)
wherein the evaluation device (Mann Col. 21, lines 4-6: "Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal].")
metering error signal which indicates a malfunction of the sand delivery device (Mann Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].").
Regarding claim 9, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the evaluation device (Mann Col. 21, lines 4-6: "Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal].")
is configured to output a metering function signal using the detection signal, which indicates correct functioning of the sand metering unit in response to the parameter corresponding to the target parameter (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-44: "…control device (22) is activated by the vehicle-side ON signal, and the lifting magnet (6) and the magnetic valve (27) of the compressed air line (26) are simultaneously activated by two separate control signals. By the alternating actuation of the lifting magnet (6) with the desired lifting frequency, the sand flow is released and, with simultaneous activation of the conveying device, the sand is transported" ; Bartling Col. 3, line 65 to Col. 4, lines 5-7: "…defined controlled lifting frequency of the lifting magnet it is possible to transmit a defined amount of sand via the outlet opening of the sand reservoir to the conveying device. It is accordingly possible to control the amount of sand in an uncomplicated and exact manner").
Regarding claim 10, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the evaluation device is configured to output the metering error signal which is configured to perceptibly indicate the malfunction of the sand metering unit to a vehicle driver of the rail vehicle (Mann Col. 20, line 67 to Col. 21, lines 1-6: "The operator can then take appropriate action if it is determined that the temperature of the rail is below freezing and moisture is present so that sanding may be provided to ensure that traction is maintained [output to vehicle driver of rail vehicle]. Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal]." ; Mann Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].")
Regarding claim 11, Mann teaches: A method for carrying out a diagnosis for a sand metering unit for a sanding system for a rail vehicle, the method comprising: detecting, via at least one sensor comprising at least one reed sensor, proximity sensor, microswitch, triangulation rangefinder, or a permanent magnet with a least one reed sensor with reed contacts mounted relative to the permanent magnet, a position of a piston of the sand metering unit and providing a detection signal (Col. 20, line 63 to Col. 21, lines 1-4: "In FIG. 17, sensor (130) is mounted within locomotive (132) (shown generally) wherein the sensor is oriented to detect the infrared radiation from-rail (134) [detector device - proximity sensor]. Accordingly, the temperature of the rail (134) is suitably determined and may be conveyed to the rail operator. The operator can then take appropriate action if it is determined that the temperature of the rail is below freezing and moisture is present so that sanding may be provided to ensure that traction is maintained [detection for the purpose of sand metering unit].")
and outputting a metering error signal using the detection signal wherein the metering error signal indicates a malfunction of the of the sand metering unit (Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].")
detection signal is a position signal (Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].").
Mann does not teach a position of a piston, and to provide a detection signal representing the detected position of the piston, detected position of the piston.
In a similar field of endeavor (sand dosing and block devices in rail vehicles), Bartling teaches: representing the position of the piston, (Col. 2, lines 46-53: "…opened and closed by the movement of the lifting rod constituting the armature of the lifting magnet [position]. […] since the lifting piston, with every lift [position]" ; Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released [detected position signal of sand metering device].")
position of the piston (Col. 2, lines 46-53: "…is opened and closed by the movement of the lifting rod constituting the armature of the lifting magnet [position]." ; Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released [detected position signal of sand metering device].")
detection signal is a position signal (Col. 6, lines 25-31: "…in the current-free state, in a position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released. By means of a frequency control of the lifting magnet (6) it is possible to control the amount of sand exiting through the outlet (4) [position signal - deviating from a target position].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mann to include the teaching of Bartling based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of a sand dosing and blocking device for rail vehicles involving an electrically activated lifting magnet (Bartling Col. 2, lines 28-63).
The combination of Mann and Bartling does not teach if in response to the deviating from an activation signal configured to being about a piston movement to a target, only in response to deviating from an activation signal to being about a piston movement to the target.
In a similar field of endeavor (traction effort systems for locomotives), Worden, et al. teaches: if in response to the deviating from an activation signal configured to being about a piston movement to a target (Col. 25, lines 39-43: "…actuator may be included to moving the plunger [piston] from the first position and the second position in response to signal from a controller [activation signal]. The signal may be based on one or more of elapsing time period, clog detection and measured slippage of the wheel on the rail [signal definition]." ; Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…slippage is detected or if system engagement is warranted there is also a signal for the operator to know that conditions exist calling for more traction [signal needed in response for deviation from normal conditions]. This information may allow for indication that a nozzle or nozzles are not aligned or are clogged, that a tractive media reservoir is empty, or that some condition exists that needs attention [deviation from activation signal – piston cannot move to target position because of clogged or empty media reservoir].")
only in response to deviating from an activation signal to being about a piston movement to the target (Col. 25, lines 39-43: "…actuator may be included to moving the plunger [piston] from the first position and the second position in response to signal from a controller [activation signal]. The signal may be based on one or more of elapsing time period, clog detection and measured slippage of the wheel on the rail [signal definition]." ; Col. 26, lines 48-57: "…slippage is detected or if system engagement is warranted there is also a signal for the operator to know that conditions exist calling for more traction [signal needed in response for deviation from normal conditions]. This information may allow for indication that a nozzle or nozzles are not aligned or are clogged, that a tractive media reservoir is empty, or that some condition exists that needs attention [deviation from activation signal – piston cannot move to target position because of clogged or empty media reservoir].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mann and Bartling to include the teaching of Worden, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of modifying the traction of a locomotive wheel contacting a surface (Worden, et al. Col. 1, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 12, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program configured to execute and/or control the method as claimed in claim 11 (Mann Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].").
Regarding claim 15, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, having an activation device configured to output the activation signal which is configured to bring about a piston movement of the piston to the target position (Bartling control device (22), Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines 44-50: “The control device (22) receives the control signals from the vehicle via a corresponding control line (24). […] frequency-controlled actuation of the lifting magnet (6). […] lifting frequency”).
Regarding claim 16, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 15, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 15, wherein the activation device is configured to output the activation signal which is configured to bring about the piston movement of the piston to the target position, which is an opened open position of the piston (Bartling Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines 44-50: "The control device (22) receives the control signals from the vehicle via a corresponding control line (24). […] frequency-controlled actuation of the lifting magnet (6). […] lifting frequency" ; Bartling Col. 6, lines 25-29: "…current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released.").
Regarding claim 17, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, wherein the activation device is configured to automatically output the activation signal in response to a manually effected, input actuation and/or in a pulse-width modulation interval (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-35: "…manual actuation of the driver of a vehicle" ; Bartling Col. 6, line 65 to Col. 7, lines 1-5: "…the result is that a control signal assigned to the velocity--e.g. 0-10 V--is transmitted from the vehicle to the control device (22), and the control device (22) transmits the vehicle signal to the lifting magnet (6) as a frequency signal that is proportional to the velocity").
Regarding claim 18, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, wherein the detection device (Mann, Col. 16, lines 62-65: "In FIG. 17, sensor (130) is mounted within locomotive (132) (shown generally) wherein the sensor is oriented to detect the infrared radiation from-rail (134) [detection device for locomotive].")
is configured to detect an open position of the piston as the position and to provide an open signal representing the open position and/or to detect a closed position of the piston and to provide a closed signal representing the closed position and/or to detect at least one center position of the piston between the open position and the closed position and to provide a center signal representing the center position (Bartling Col. 5, lines 15-22: “…current-free state of the lifting magnet (6), is taken automatically to the closing position”).
Regarding claim 19, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, wherein the detection device is configured to detect a delivery pressure of a sand delivery device of the sanding system as the parameter and to provide a delivery pressure signal representing the delivery pressure as the detection signal, (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-44: “…vehicle-side ON signal, and the lifting magnet (6) and the magnetic valve (27) of the compressed air line (26) are simultaneously activated by two separate control signals. By the alternating actuation of the lifting magnet (6) with the desired lifting frequency, the sand flow is released and, with simultaneous activation of the conveying device, the sand is transported by means of compressed air via the compressed air connection (25)”)
is configured to output a pressure error signal using the delivery pressure signal in response to the delivery pressure deviating from a target delivery pressure (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-44: “…vehicle-side ON signal, and the lifting magnet (6) and the magnetic valve (27) of the compressed air line (26) are simultaneously activated by two separate control signals. By the alternating actuation of the lifting magnet (6) with the desired lifting frequency, the sand flow is released and, with simultaneous activation of the conveying device, the sand is transported by means of compressed air via the compressed air connection (25)”)
wherein the evaluation device (Mann Col. 21, lines 4-6: "Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal].")
metering error signal indicates a malfunction of the sand delivery device (Mann Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].").
Regarding claim 21, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, wherein the evaluation device (Mann Col. 21, lines 4-6: "Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal].")
is configured to output a metering function signal using the detection signal, which indicates correct functioning of the sand metering unit in response to the parameter corresponding to the target parameter (Bartling Col. 6, lines 32-44: "…control device (22) is activated by the vehicle-side ON signal, and the lifting magnet (6) and the magnetic valve (27) of the compressed air line (26) are simultaneously activated by two separate control signals. By the alternating actuation of the lifting magnet (6) with the desired lifting frequency, the sand flow is released and, with simultaneous activation of the conveying device, the sand is transported" ; Bartling Col. 3, line 65 to Col. 4, lines 5-7: "…defined controlled lifting frequency of the lifting magnet it is possible to transmit a defined amount of sand via the outlet opening of the sand reservoir to the conveying device. It is accordingly possible to control the amount of sand in an uncomplicated and exact manner").
Regarding claim 22, Mann, Bartling, and Worden, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, wherein the evaluation device is configured to output the metering error signal which is configured to perceptibly indicate the malfunction of the sand metering unit to a vehicle driver of the rail vehicle (Mann Col. 20, line 67 to Col. 21, lines 1-6: "The operator can then take appropriate action if it is determined that the temperature of the rail is below freezing and moisture is present so that sanding may be provided to ensure that traction is maintained [output to vehicle driver of rail vehicle]. Alternatively, corrective action can be automatically initiated, by activation of the external device control line (167) (FIG. 18). Such corrective action may comprise activation of a rail sanding machine or the like [evaluation device for sand using detection signal]." ; Mann Col. 19, lines 51-56: "Also, in the event of some other type of failure of the infrared sensor, for example by loss of signal from the sensor, the fault indicator may also be illuminated to advise the operator that some general failure or impairment of the instrument has occurred. Warning indicator (123) is illuminated in the event that icing is determined to be likely [output of metering error signal in event of malfunction].").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claims 1 and 11 was patentable over Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8073591, hereafter referred to as Bartling ‘591) in view of Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8517432, hereafter referred to as Bartling ‘432) and in further view of Liberatore, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8738202) and in further view of Worden, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9308921) because Bartling ‘432 does not teach the claimed sensor. Please note that Mann (U.S. Patent No. 6166657) was cited in order to teach this feature. In Mann, a sensor (130) “…is mounted within locomotive (132) (shown generally) wherein the sensor is oriented to detect the infrared radiation from-rail (134)” and “…the temperature of the rail (134)”, in which this information is analyzed in order to determine if “…sanding may be provided to ensure that traction is maintained” (Col. 20, line 63 to Col. 21, lines 1-4). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Mann with Bartling ‘432 and Worden, et al. because Bartling ‘432 teaches a detected position of a piston (Col. 2, lines 46-53, Col. 6, lines 25-31) and Worden, et al. teaches the condition of a position signal as an error signal in response to a position signal deviating from a piston movement activation signal to a target position (Col. 25, lines 39-43, Col. 26, lines 48-57).
Applicant also asserted that amended claims 1 and 11 was patentable over Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8073591, hereafter referred to as Bartling ‘591) in view of Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8517432, hereafter referred to as Bartling ‘432) and in further view of Liberatore, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8738202) and in further view of Worden, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9308921) because Bartling ‘432 does not teach the position of a piston. The examiner disagrees. In Bartling ‘432, the movement of the piston is governed by the movement of the “…lifting rod constituting the armature of the lifting magnet” (Col. 2, lines 46-53), in which the magnet’s movement is governed by the position of the working lift, which the “…position that closes the outlet opening (4) of the sand reservoir (2) and, in the current-bearing condition in a position in which the outlet opening (4) is released” through the use of frequency control (Col. 6, lines 25-31). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Bartling ‘432 with Mann and Worden, et al. because Mann teaches a detection device containing a proximity sensor (Col. 20, line 63 to Col. 21, lines 1-4) and Worden, et al. teaches the condition of a position signal as an error signal in response to a position signal deviating from a piston movement activation signal to a target position (Col. 25, lines 39-43, Col. 26, lines 48-57).
Applicant also asserted that amended claims 1 and 11 was patentable over Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8073591, hereafter referred to as Bartling ‘591) in view of Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8517432, hereafter referred to as Bartling ‘432) and in further view of Liberatore, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8738202) and in further view of Worden, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9308921) because Worden, et al. fails to teach a position signal or a position signal deviating from a target position. In Worden, et al. teaches the process of “…An actuator […] to moving the plunger”, or piston, “…from the first position and the second position in response to signal from a controller”, or activation signal. As a result, the definition of “…The signal may be based on one or more of elapsing time period, clog detection and measured slippage of the wheel on the rail” (Col. 25, lines 39-43). The deviation from a target position is stated under the condition of “…when slippage is detected or if system engagement is warranted there is also a signal for the operator to know that conditions exist calling for more traction” (Col. 26, lines 48-57). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Worden, et al. with Mann and Bartling ‘432 because Mann teaches a detection device containing a proximity sensor (Col. 20, line 63 to Col. 21, lines 1-4) and Bartling ‘432 teaches a detected position of a piston (Col. 2, lines 46-53, Col. 6, lines 25-31).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Mann, Bartling ‘432, and Worden, et al. reads on the claim limitation of the claimed sensor, the position of a piston, and a position signal or a position signal deviating from a target position, as stated in amended claims 1 and 11, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050140144) teaches a method and computer program related to limiting the use of sand in a railroad locomotive sanding system for the purpose of enhancing adhesion of the wheels of the locomotive to the rails.
Bartling (U.S. Patent No. 8073591) teaches a method and apparatus for monitoring the sand supply in a sand tank of a sand-scattering device for locomotives.
Liberatore, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8738202) teaches a process in a locomotive in which the locomotive’s sanding system is not disabled if a primary speed reference used to detect the locomotive’s speed is faulty.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 Y 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights