DETAILED ACTION
This office action is response to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026. This action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims remain 13 – 31 pending in the application. The previous 112f interpretation, 112a, and 112b rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments/remarks, the applicant alleges that the claim includes an improvement to the technical field, therefore integrate the claim into practical application. Additionally, the claims recite a specific configuration of these components for a particular technological purpose. The first sensor unit is specifically configured to detect at least a first measurement value of a first wheel head and the second sensor unit is configured to detect a second measurement value of a second wheel head. The evaluation unit is specifically configured to compare time integrations of the first measured value with the second measured value and to output and/or store a signal if the difference of the first measured value to the second measured value exceeds a threshold value. This specific configuration of components working together to achieve monitoring of a wheel head for a commercial vehicle represents significantly more than a generic computer implementation. (Remark, page 11)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim still centers on collecting data, comparing values, and storing/outputting a result—activities that fall within the abstract-idea category of mental processes and mathematical relationships. Merely reciting that the sensors are “integral” or detect “multiple physical quantities” does not change the nature of the claim. The claimed sensors and evaluation unit are recited at a high level of generality, with no details about specific technological improvements to sensor structure, signal processing hardware, or data transmission. The “output and/or store a signal if the difference … exceeds a threshold” step is simply reporting the result of the abstract comparison, which the Federal Circuit has consistently held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Nothing in the claim improves how sensors or computers operate; it only automates an abstract evaluation using conventional components. Therefore, the claim as a whole remains directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and the 101 rejection is properly maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 13 has been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13 - 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A wheel head monitoring unit, comprising:
a first sensor unit;
a second sensor unit; and
an evaluation unit;
wherein the first sensor unit is configured to detect at least a first measurement value of a first wheel head;
wherein the second sensor unit is configured to detect a second measurement value of a second wheel head, wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit comprises an integral sensor, which is designed to detect multiple physical quantities;
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to compare time integrations of the first measured value with the second measured value; and
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to output and/or store a signal if the difference of the first measured value to the second measured value exceeds a threshold value; and
wherein the wheel head monitoring unit comprises an ambient temperature sensor, and
wherein the wheel head monitoring unit is mounted on a commercial vehicle and/or is designed to be mounted on a commercial vehicle,
wherein the evaluation unit comprises computing hardware configured to execute comparison algorithms.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitation “compare time integration of the first measurement value with the second measured value” is directed to a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A wheel head monitoring unit, comprising:
a first sensor unit;
a second sensor unit; and
an evaluation unit;
wherein the first sensor unit is configured to detect at least a first measurement value of a first wheel head;
wherein the second sensor unit is configured to detect a second measurement value of a second wheel head, wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit comprises an integral sensor, which is designed to detect multiple physical quantities;
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to compare time integrations of the first measured value with the second measured value; and
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to output and/or store a signal if the difference of the first measured value to the second measured value exceeds a threshold value; and
wherein the wheel head monitoring unit comprises an ambient temperature sensor, and
wherein the wheel head monitoring unit is mounted on a commercial vehicle and/or is designed to be mounted on a commercial vehicle,
wherein the evaluation unit comprises computing hardware configured to execute comparison algorithms.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “first sensor unit”, “second sensor unit”, “evaluation unit”, “ambient temperature sensor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “first sensor unit”, “second sensor unit”, “evaluation unit”, “ambient temperature sensor” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract ideas, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitation of “detect at least a first measurement …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “detect a second measurement value …” is related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “output and/or store a signal …” is directed to a post-solution activity, therefore, it does not integrate the claim into practical application. Merely reciting that the sensors are “integral” or detect “multiple physical quantities” does not change the nature of the claim. The claimed sensors and evaluation unit are recited at a high level of generality, with no details about specific technological improvements to sensor structure, signal processing hardware, or data transmission. The additional limitation of “wherein the wheel head monitoring unit is mounted on a commercial vehicle and/or is designed to be mounted on a commercial vehicle” merely describes a field of use that does not provide any improvement to technology or technical field, therefore, it does not integrate the claim into practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “first sensor unit”, “second sensor unit”, “evaluation unit”, “ambient temperature sensor” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional limitation of “detect at least a first measurement value …” and “detect a second measurement value …” are related to data gathering, thus being directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The additional limitation of “output and/or store a signal …” is directed to a post-solution activity, therefore, it does not provide inventive concept. Merely reciting that the sensors are “integral” or detect “multiple physical quantities” does not change the nature of the claim. The claimed sensors and evaluation unit are recited at a high level of generality, with no details about specific technological improvements to sensor structure, signal processing hardware, or data transmission. The additional limitation of “wherein the wheel head monitoring unit is mounted on a commercial vehicle and/or is designed to be mounted on a commercial vehicle” is directed to well-understood, routine and conventional. Merely applying it on a commercial vehicle does not provide an inventive concept that changes the nature of the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not significant more than the judicial exception. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 14 – 31 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 14 – 31 do not recite any additional limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 14 – 31 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 13.
Therefore, claim(s) 13 –31 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 13 – 16, 22 – 23, 25 – 26, 28 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ralph, Robert (Patent No. US 6823242 B1; hereinafter Ralph) in view of Martin, Andrew (Publication No. US 20130342362 A1; hereinafter Martin) in further view of Wiggins et al. (Publication No. US 20180290671 A1; hereinafter Wiggins) in further view of Gohrle et al. (Publication No. DE102014014297A1; hereinafter Gohrle).
Regarding to claim 13, Ralph teaches
A wheel head monitoring unit, comprising:
a first sensor unit; ([Col. 4, line 32 - 33, “apparatus 30 includes at least a first wheel temperature sensor 32,”)
a second sensor unit; ([Col. 4, line 33], “second wheel temperature sensor 34”) and
an evaluation unit; ([Col. 4, line 43, “processor 52”)
wherein the first sensor unit is configured to detect at least a first measurement value of a first wheel head; ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”)
wherein the second sensor unit is configured to detect a second measurement value of a second wheel head; ([Col. 6, line 54 – 65], “a second temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of the remaining axles of the brake group. As described above, the wheels/axles shown in FIG. 4 have been assumed, for purposes of this example, to be associated with the same brake valve group. The remaining axles are thus the second, third and fourth axles having wheels with temperatures designated T.sub.3 -T.sub.8. Second temperature parameter may be defined as the arithmetic average of the temperature values T.sub.3 through T.sub.8.”)
the evaluation unit is configured to compare the first measured value with the second measured value; and
([Col. 7, line 8 – 20], “the ratio of the second temperature parameter to the first parameter is determined. That is to say the second temperature parameter is divided by the first temperature parameter to obtain a ratio. The method then proceeds to step 74. In step 74, the method of the invention checks the average temperature of the wheels of the brake group against a predetermined limit. The purpose of the limit check is to ensure that the subsequent check of the ratio against the predetermined threshold will be valid.”)
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to output and/or store a signal if the difference of the first measured value to the second measured value exceeds a threshold value; ([Col. 7, line 33 – 43], “the ratio calculated in step 72 is checked against the predetermined threshold. If the ratio exceeds the threshold, then this result is indicative of a malfunctioning brake system, and perhaps a sliding wheel condition depending on the level of the ratio chosen, and the degree to which the ratio exceeds the chosen threshold. The method then proceeds to step 78. (20) In step 78, an alarm is generated indicating that a malfunctioning wheel/brake condition exists, perhaps a sliding wheel condition. Otherwise, control of the method branches to step 79.”)
wherein the wheel head monitoring unit comprises an ambient temperature sensor. ([Col. 5, line 14 – 15], “a constructed embodiment, the sensors 32 and 34 are configured so as to produce a null signal at ambient temperature, and generate an increasing analog signal as the detected temperature increases (i.e., a difference relative to ambient temperature).”)
wherein the evaluation unit comprises computing hardware configured to execute comparison algorithm. ([Col. 5, line 50 – 55], “Processor 52 may comprise conventional hardware and software as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, such as, for example only, a central processing unit, main memory, non-volatile information storage (e.g., hard drive), and the like configured with a suitable operating system, and arranged to execute programmed software routines, in conformance with the description provided in greater detail hereinafter.”)
Ralph teaches to comprise a wheel head monitoring unit for monitoring temperature of the wheel as described above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wheel head monitoring unit is mounted on a commercial vehicle and/or is designed to be mounted on a commercial vehicle.
However, Martin teaches wherein the wheel head monitoring unit is mounted on a commercial vehicle and/or is designed to be mounted on a commercial vehicle. ([Par. 0034], “The individual motes 10 are mounted on the areas of interest on a railcar 38. As an example, FIGS. 3 and 3A show a temperature sensing mote 10 of the type described above mounted to a bearing adapter 12 of a railcar wheel bearing 39 of a railcar. The unit may be attached using a thermally conductive epoxy adhesive between the brass plug 22 and the adapter 36 to ensure good heat transfer to the temperature sensor and mechanical fasteners such as self tapping screws to hold the mote 10 in place. In this particular example, motes 10 may be attached to all 8 wheel bearing adapters 12 of each railcar wheel 40. In addition, an ambient temperature sensor mote 10 may also be mounted on an area of the railcar 38 receiving free airflow. FIG. 4 shows a mote 10 mounted on the body of a railcar 38 for monitoring the ambient temperature. The device electrical circuitry 26 obtains information related to the temperature being monitored, e.g., a bearing or ambient. Since the temperature sensor is not in direct contact with the bearing, but the bearing adapter, the device is calibrated so that the temperature reading is indicative of the bearing temperature. This calibration takes into account the temperature of the bearing adapter at the point measured (see FIG. 3a), the ambient temperature as measured by the second temperature sensor mote mounted elsewhere on the rail car so as to sense ambient temperature (see FIG. 4), and information about the type of bearing adapter (different models have different sizes and configurations).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ralph by incorporating the onboard sensor and monitoring system of Martin, which discloses motes and a communication management unit mounted on a railcar to monitor wheel and ambient conditions. This combination would allow Ralph’s wheel condition analysis to be performed directly on the vehicle, eliminating reliance on trackside infrastructure and enabling real-time, continuous monitoring—an expected and beneficial improvement.
Ralph teaches to have the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit to detect the first measurement value and the second measurement value as described above, but the combination of Ralph and Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit comprises an integral sensor, which is designed to detect multiple physical quantities;
However, Wiggins teaches wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit comprises an integral sensor, which is designed to detect multiple physical quantities; ([Par. 0005], “The bearing hub assembly is mounted to an inside surface of the rail wheels. A sensor integral to the bearing hub assembly measures distance, speed, rotation, and/or direction of the rail wheel as the rail vehicle is propelled along rails of a railroad track. By utilizing a bearing hub assembly that includes an integrated sensor, time required for adjusting and/or aligning the sensor with respect to the rail wheel is drastically reduced. Additionally, utilizing a sensor mounted on an inside surface of a rail wheel as opposed to utilizing an externally-mounted sensor reduces the amount of risk associated with potential collision damages and ultimately increases the longevity of the sensor's operation.” Where this should be understood as the bearing hub assembly is applied to each wheel of the vehicle to monitor multiple physical quantities of the respective wheel.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Ralph and Martin to incorporate the teaching of Wiggins. The modification would have been obvious because by using the integral sensor for detecting multiple physical quantities of the wheel, time required for adjusting and/or aligning the sensor with respect to the rail wheel is drastically reduced. (Wiggins, par. [0005])
Ralph teaches to compare the first and second measurement of the first and second sensor respectively as described above, but the combination of Ralph, Martin, and Wiggins does not explicitly disclose the evaluation unit is configured to compare time integrations of the first measured value with the second measured value;
However, Gohrle teaches the evaluation unit is configured to compare time integrations of the first measured value with the second measured value; ([Par. 0033], “By integrating the lifting acceleration over time, a further vertical component, i.e. along the vertical axisz, of a resulting vertical movement of the vehicle body is calculated.” [Par. 0035 – 0036], “The ride height sensor 11, which is assigned to a first wheel 1, measures the ride height of the first wheel 1 of a first side of the vehicle. Taking into account a resulting vertical movement of the vehicle body at the respective corner 21, the traversed height profile is calculated by subtracting the height value of the first wheel 1 from the resulting vertical movement. [0036]A second ride height sensor 12, which is assigned to a second wheel 2, measures the ride height value at this second wheel 2 of the first side of the vehicle. Taking into account the resulting vertical movement of the vehicle body at corner 22 of the second wheel, the height profile of the second wheel is calculated by subtracting the height value of the second wheel 2 from the resulting vertical movement.”; [Par. 0037], “The height profiles of the first wheel 1 and the second wheel 2 of the first side of the vehicle, determined in this way, are compared with each other for a specified period of time. If the comparison value exceeds a predefined threshold for a predefined period, an error is detected for the first side of the vehicle.”; [Par. 0046 – 0047], “the individual signals are integrated over time instep 36 and superimposed in a further step 38. The resulting vertical movements are then calculated from the superposition. It is conceivable that the high-pass filtering only takes place after the integration step.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Ralph, Martin, and Wiggins to incorporate the teaching of Gohrle. The modification would have been obvious because integrating the sensor data enables analysis of the sensor measurements over a period of time, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the monitoring results.
Regarding to claim 14, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
Ralph further teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a plurality of measured variables. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”)
Regarding to claim 15, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 14.
Ralph further teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a temperature of a component of the first and/or of the second wheel head of a brake of a brake disc and/or of brake linings of the first or of the second wheel head. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”; [Col. 7, line 8 – 20], “the ratio of the second temperature parameter to the first parameter is determined. That is to say the second temperature parameter is divided by the first temperature parameter to obtain a ratio. The method then proceeds to step 74. In step 74, the method of the invention checks the average temperature of the wheels of the brake group against a predetermined limit. The purpose of the limit check is to ensure that the subsequent check of the ratio against the predetermined threshold will be valid.”; [Col. 7, line 33 – 43], “the ratio calculated in step 72 is checked against the predetermined threshold. If the ratio exceeds the threshold, then this result is indicative of a malfunctioning brake system, and perhaps a sliding wheel condition depending on the level of the ratio chosen, and the degree to which the ratio exceeds the chosen threshold. The method then proceeds to step 78. (20) In step 78, an alarm is generated indicating that a malfunctioning wheel/brake condition exists, perhaps a sliding wheel condition. Otherwise, control of the method branches to step 79.”)
Regarding to claim 16, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 15.
Ralph further teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a temperature of a wheel bearing of the first and/or the second wheel head. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”)
Regarding to claim 22, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
Ralph further teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a temperature of a component of the first and/or of the second wheel head of a brake of a brake disc and/or of brake linings of the first or of the second wheel head. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”; [Col. 7, line 8 – 20], “the ratio of the second temperature parameter to the first parameter is determined. That is to say the second temperature parameter is divided by the first temperature parameter to obtain a ratio. The method then proceeds to step 74. In step 74, the method of the invention checks the average temperature of the wheels of the brake group against a predetermined limit. The purpose of the limit check is to ensure that the subsequent check of the ratio against the predetermined threshold will be valid.”; [Col. 7, line 33 – 43], “the ratio calculated in step 72 is checked against the predetermined threshold. If the ratio exceeds the threshold, then this result is indicative of a malfunctioning brake system, and perhaps a sliding wheel condition depending on the level of the ratio chosen, and the degree to which the ratio exceeds the chosen threshold. The method then proceeds to step 78. (20) In step 78, an alarm is generated indicating that a malfunctioning wheel/brake condition exists, perhaps a sliding wheel condition. Otherwise, control of the method branches to step 79.”)
Regarding to claim 23, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
Ralph further teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a temperature of a wheel bearing of the first and/or the second wheel head. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”)
Regarding to claim 25, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
Ralph further teaches further comprising: a plurality of sensor units, where each sensor unit is configured to detect at least one measured value of a respective wheel head. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”;)
Regarding to claim 26, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 25.
Ralph further teaches where the plurality of sensor units includes at least four sensor units. ([Col. 4, line 32 – 45], “FIG. 2, apparatus 30 includes at least a first wheel temperature sensor32, and preferably a second wheel temperature sensor 34, each configured to generate a respective temperature indicative signal 36 and 38, a wheel position sensor 40 configured to generate a wheel position signal 42, an optional, second wheel position sensor 44 to generate a second wheel position signal 46 (for ascertaining train direction), an optional set 48 of wheel position sensors generating awheel window signal 50, a processor 52 contained, for example, in a wayside house 54, an optional human speech engine 56, a radio transmitter 58, and an antenna 60.”)’
Regarding to claim 28, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
Ralph further teaches wherein the wheel head monitoring unit includes a commercial vehicle wheel head monitoring unit. ([Col. 6, line 23 – 25], “a car 14 having a pair of trucks, each with two axles (i.e., therefore four wheels per truck). The pair of trucks are associated with a single brake valve. With reference to FIG. 5, in step 66, the method of the present invention is operative to identify the various cars, and trucks (and axles) thereof in the train.”)
Regarding to claim 29, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
Ralph further teaches A method for detecting a malfunction of a wheel head using a wheel head monitoring unit according to claim 13, comprising:
detection of the first measured value of the first wheel head; ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”)
detection of the second measured value of the second wheel head; ([Col. 6, line 54 – 65], “a second temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of the remaining axles of the brake group. As described above, the wheels/axles shown in FIG. 4 have been assumed, for purposes of this example, to be associated with the same brake valve group. The remaining axles are thus the second, third and fourth axles having wheels with temperatures designated T.sub.3 -T.sub.8. Second temperature parameter may be defined as the arithmetic average of the temperature values T.sub.3 through T.sub.8.”) and
comparing the first measured value with the second measured value. ([Col. 7, line 8 – 20], “the ratio of the second temperature parameter to the first parameter is determined. That is to say the second temperature parameter is divided by the first temperature parameter to obtain a ratio. The method then proceeds to step 74. In step 74, the method of the invention checks the average temperature of the wheels of the brake group against a predetermined limit. The purpose of the limit check is to ensure that the subsequent check of the ratio against the predetermined threshold will be valid.”)
Claim 30 recites the commercial vehicle with substantially similar scope as claim 13, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 13 above.
Regarding to claim 31, the combination of Ralph and Martin teaches the commercial vehicle of claim 31.
Ralph further teaches wherein the commercial vehicle includes a commercial vehicle trailer. ([Col. 6, line 23 – 25], “a car 14 having a pair of trucks, each with two axles (i.e., therefore four wheels per truck). The pair of trucks are associated with a single brake valve. With reference to FIG. 5, in step 66, the method of the present invention is operative to identify the various cars, and trucks (and axles) thereof in the train.”)
Claim(s) 17 – 19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle in view of Fink et al. (Publication No. US 20100083747 A1; hereafter Fink).
Regarding to claim 17, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 16.
The combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches to monitor the temperature of the wheels as described in claim 16 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a rotational speed of a wheel of a lift axle of the first and/or the second wheel head.
However, Fink teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a rotational speed of a wheel of a lift axle of the first and/or the second wheel head. ([Par. 0052], “the monitoring of a tire pressure on the basis of a measured rotational speed, are also performed by a direct system, i.e. sensors installed in or on the tire. Although the tire pressure can, as mentioned, simply be measured by means of a pressure sensor, the measured value determined via a revolution or rotational speed sensor installed directly in or on the tire can be used for checking the value determined by means of the pressure sensor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle to incorporate the teaching of Fink. The modification would have been obvious because monitoring the rotational speed of the wheel enables the detection of any faults that may occur in the wheel.
Regarding to claim 18, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, and Fink teaches the monitoring unit of claim 17.
Ralph further teaches further comprising: a plurality of sensor units, where each sensor unit is configured to detect at least one measured value of a respective wheel head. ([Col. 6, line 44 – 53], “a first temperature parameter is defined that is associated with the wheels of an axle being checked. The process involves, in a preferred embodiment, proceeding axle by axle within a brake valve group. Taking the first (top most) axle in FIG. 4 as exemplary (i.e., the axle associated with wheels having temperatures designated T.sub.1 and T.sub.2), first temperature parameter may be the temperature value T.sub.1 or the temperature value T.sub.2, the average of T.sub.1 and T.sub.2,or, preferably, the higher one of the temperature values T.sub.1 and T.sub.2.”;)
Regarding to claim 19, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, and Fink teaches the monitoring unit of claim 18.
Ralph further teaches where the plurality of sensor units includes at least four sensor units. ([Col. 4, line 32 – 45], “FIG. 2, apparatus 30 includes at least a first wheel temperature sensor32, and preferably a second wheel temperature sensor 34, each configured to generate a respective temperature indicative signal 36 and 38, a wheel position sensor 40 configured to generate a wheel position signal 42, an optional, second wheel position sensor 44 to generate a second wheel position signal 46 (for ascertaining train direction), an optional set 48 of wheel position sensors generating awheel window signal 50, a processor 52 contained, for example, in a wayside house 54, an optional human speech engine 56, a radio transmitter 58, and an antenna 60.”)
Regarding to claim 24, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
The combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches to monitor the temperature of the wheels as described in claim 16 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a rotational speed of a wheel of a lift axle of the first and/or the second wheel head.
However, Fink teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit is/are configured to detect a rotational speed of a wheel of a lift axle of the first and/or the second wheel head. ([Par. 0052], “the monitoring of a tire pressure on the basis of a measured rotational speed, are also performed by a direct system, i.e. sensors installed in or on the tire. Although the tire pressure can, as mentioned, simply be measured by means of a pressure sensor, the measured value determined via a revolution or rotational speed sensor installed directly in or on the tire can be used for checking the value determined by means of the pressure sensor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle to incorporate the teaching of Fink. The modification would have been obvious because monitoring the rotational speed of the wheel enables the detection of any faults that may occur in the wheel.
Claim(s) 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, and Fink in further view of Gokmen, Sabri (Publication No. US 20220306167 A1; hereafter Gokmen).
Regarding to claim 20, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, and Fink teaches the monitoring unit of claim 18.
The combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, and Fink teaches to include a plurality of sensors to monitor the wheel but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit comprises/comprise a vibration sensor.
However, Gokmen teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit comprises/comprise a vibration sensor. ([Par. 0011], “detect the vibration created by the wheels of the train in motion on the rails by a vibration sensor connected to the rail body and to reveal the vibration information caused by the flat surfaces on the train wheels, if any, from this data set.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, and Fink to incorporate the teaching of Gokmen. The modification would have been obvious because by comprising a vibration sensor, it enables the system to monitor the wheel to detect any fault that might occur in the wheel.
Regarding to claim 21, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, Gohrle, Fink, and Gokmen teaches the monitoring unit of claim 20.
Ralph further teaches wherein the wheel head monitoring unit includes a commercial vehicle wheel head monitoring unit. ([Col. 6, line 23 – 25], “a car 14 having a pair of trucks, each with two axles (i.e., therefore four wheels per truck). The pair of trucks are associated with a single brake valve. With reference to FIG. 5, in step 66, the method of the present invention is operative to identify the various cars, and trucks (and axles) thereof in the train.”)
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle in further view of Gokmen.
Regarding to claim 27, the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches the monitoring unit of claim 13.
The combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle teaches to include a plurality of sensors to monitor the wheel but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit comprises/comprise a vibration sensor.
However, Gokmen teaches wherein the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit comprises/comprise a vibration sensor. ([Par. 0011], “detect the vibration created by the wheels of the train in motion on the rails by a vibration sensor connected to the rail body and to reveal the vibration information caused by the flat surfaces on the train wheels, if any, from this data set.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Ralph, Martin, Wiggins, and Gohrle to incorporate the teaching of Gokmen. The modification would have been obvious because by comprising a vibration sensor, it enables the system to monitor the wheel to detect any fault that might occur in the wheel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights