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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cook (US 2016/0001799 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Cook discloses a power control system for a locomotive, comprising:
a throttle (Fig. 1C) configured to indicate a first amount of primary power to be provided from a primary power source (4) to one or more traction motors of the locomotive (Fig. 1) (Para. [0056]);
a user-selectable actuator (“a secondary input, possibly a momentary button or a pedal. This could be the ‘boost’ switch”, Para. [0078]), separate from the throttle, configured to select a second amount of auxiliary power to be provided from an electrical storage (6) (Para. [0047]) to the one or more traction motors (Para. [0078]); and
a control module (14) configured to cause, in response to the user-selectable actuator selecting a second amount of auxiliary power, delivery of at least some of the second amount of auxiliary power to the one or more traction motors (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 8: Cook discloses the power control system of claim 1, wherein the user-selectable actuator comprises one or more mechanical switches (“boost switch”) (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 9: Cook discloses a locomotive, comprising:
a diesel-electric engine (4) (Para. [0009]);
an electrical storage (6) (Para. [0047]);
traction motors coupled to the diesel-electric engine and to the electrical storage (Para. [0137-0138]);
a cab configured to house an operator of the locomotive, the cab containing controls adjustable by the operator to affect movement of the locomotive (Para. [0009]), the controls comprising:
a throttle lever (Fig. 1C) adjustable to set a total power to be provided to the traction motors for propelling the locomotive (Para. [0078]), and
an actuator (“a secondary input, possibly a momentary button or a pedal. This could be the ‘boost’ switch”, Para. [0078]), separate from the throttle lever, adjustable to set a second amount of auxiliary power to be provided from the electrical storage (6) (Para. [0047]) to the traction motors (Para. [0078]); and
a control module (14), coupled to the diesel-electric engine and to the electrical storage (Fig. 1), configured to cause delivery of the second amount of auxiliary power to the traction motors, in response to the actuator being set at the second amount of auxiliary power (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 13: Cook discloses the locomotive of claim 9, wherein the actuator signals the control module (14) to cause delivery of the second amount of auxiliary power to the traction motors when the total power set by the throttle lever (Fig. 1C) is a maximum value of the diesel-electric engine (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 14: Cook discloses a method for executing a power boost in a locomotive, comprising:
receiving, from a user-activated throttle (Fig. 1C) in a cab of the locomotive (4) (Fig. 1), a setting for diesel-engine power from a diesel-electric engine for driving traction motors of the locomotive (Para. [0078]);
receiving, from a user-selectable actuator (“a secondary input, possibly a momentary button or a pedal. This could be the ‘boost’ switch”, Para. [0078]) in the cab separate from the user-activated throttle, a request for a first level of the power boost for driving the traction motors (Para. [0078]); and
causing a delivery of a first amount of electrical power commensurate with the first level from an electrical storage to the traction motors together with the diesel-engine power (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 15: Cook discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising:
receiving, from the user-selectable actuator (“boost switch”), a request for a second level of the power boost (e.g., “special notch 9”, Para. [0079]) higher than the first level (e.g., “typical rated notch 8”, Para. [0078]); and
causing the delivery to include a second amount of electrical power commensurate with the second level from the electrical storage (6) to the traction motors together with the diesel-engine power (Para. [0078-0079]).
Referring to Claim 16: Cook discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising:
receiving, from the user-selectable actuator (e.g., “momentary notch 9”, Para. [0079]), another request (“when the engineer releases the lever”, Para. [0079]) for the first level of the power boost; and
causing the delivery to revert to the first amount of electrical power (Para. [0079]).
Referring to Claim 17: Cook discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising:
receiving, from the user-activated throttle (Fig. 1C), a setting (e.g., “notches 1 thru 7”) for delivery of decreased diesel-engine power to the traction motors (Para. [0078]);
causing the delivery of the decreased diesel-engine power to the traction motors; and
ceasing the power boost (Para. [0078-0080]).
Referring to Claim 20: Cook discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the causing the delivery of the first amount of electrical power is in response to the diesel-engine power being a maximum value (“notch 8”) and the request for the first level of the power boost being received (Para. [0078-0080]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook.
Referring to Claim 2: Cook further teaches the power control system of claim 1, wherein the throttle includes throttle notches (notches 1-8) indicating the first amount of primary power (Fig. 1C) and the user-selectable actuator includes a boost switch (Para. [0078]) or optional notch 9 (Para. [0079]) indicating the second amount of auxiliary power (Para. [0078]).
As noted by strikethrough above, Cook fails to teach multiple boost notches, instead teaching “a secondary input, possibly a momentary button or a pedal. This could be the ‘boost’ switch” (Para. [0078]) or a special notch 9 setting past notch 8 (Para. [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to include multiple boost notches, similar to special notch 9, in order to provide greater user control over the amount of boost power with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Referring to Claim 3: Cook further teaches the power control system of claim 2, wherein the primary power source (4) is a diesel engine (Para. [0009]), the electrical storage (6) is a battery (Para. [0047]), and the throttle (Fig. 1C) is positioned at a maximum one (notch 8) of the throttle notches (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 4: Cook further teaches the power control system of claim 2, wherein the primary power source (4) is a diesel engine (Para. [0009]), the electrical storage (6) includes a battery (Para. [0047]), and the throttle (Fig. 1C) is not positioned at a maximum one of the throttle notches (notches 1-7) (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 10: Cook further teaches the locomotive of claim 9, wherein the throttle lever (Fig. 1C) has notches for sequentially adjusting the total power (Para. [0078]), and the actuator has a boost switch (Para. [0078]) or optional notch 9 (Para. [0079]) for sequentially adjusting the auxiliary power added to the total power (Para. [0078]).
As noted by strikethrough above, Cook fails to teach multiple boost notches, instead teaching “a secondary input, possibly a momentary button or a pedal. This could be the ‘boost’ switch” (Para. [0078]) or a special notch 9 setting past notch 8 (Para. [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to include multiple boost notches, similar to special notch 9, in order to provide greater user control over the amount of boost power with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Referring to Claim 12: Cook further teaches the locomotive of claim 10, wherein the actuator comprises a physical switch (“boost switch”) settable by the operator (Para. [0078]).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Shubs, Jr. et al. (US 2017/0106883 A1).
Referring to Claim 5: Cook does not specifically teach that the user-selectable actuator comprises a computer monitor. However, Shubs teaches a machine asset management system having a user interface, wherein “[u]ser interface 82 may be any appropriate type of display device, such as a computer monitor, laptop screen, cellular phone screen, etc. Input device 84 may include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, buttons, soft keys, and/or other wired or wireless user interfaces known in the art.” (emphasis added) (Para. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to implement the user-selectable actuator or “boost switch” as a computer monitor, as taught by Shubs, in order to provide a convenient user input device, well-known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 6: Cook does not specifically teach that the user-selectable actuator comprises soft key input to the computer monitor. However, Shubs teaches a machine asset management system having a user interface, wherein “[u]ser interface 82 may be any appropriate type of display device, such as a computer monitor, laptop screen, cellular phone screen, etc. Input device 84 may include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, buttons, soft keys, and/or other wired or wireless user interfaces known in the art.” (emphasis added) (Para. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to implement the user-selectable actuator or “boost switch” as a soft key input to the computer monitor, as taught by Shubs, in order to provide a convenient user input device, well-known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 7: Cook does not specifically teach that the user-selectable actuator comprises touchscreen input to the computer monitor. However, Shubs teaches a machine asset management system having a user interface, wherein “[u]ser interface 82 may be any appropriate type of display device, such as a computer monitor, laptop screen, cellular phone screen, etc. Input device 84 may include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, buttons, soft keys, and/or other wired or wireless user interfaces known in the art.” (emphasis added) (Para. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to implement the user-selectable actuator or “boost switch” as a touch screen input to the computer monitor, as taught by Shubs, in order to provide a convenient user input device, well-known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 11: Cook does not specifically teach that the actuator comprises one of a soft key or a touchscreen input on a computer monitor selectable by the operator. However, Shubs teaches a machine asset management system having a user interface, wherein “[u]ser interface 82 may be any appropriate type of display device, such as a computer monitor, laptop screen, cellular phone screen, etc. Input device 84 may include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, buttons, soft keys, and/or other wired or wireless user interfaces known in the art.” (emphasis added) (Para. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to implement the user-selectable actuator or “boost switch” as a touch screen input or soft keys to the computer monitor, as taught by Shubs, in order to provide a convenient user input device, well-known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Salasoo et al. (US 2010/0019718 A1).
Referring to Claim 18: Cook does not specifically teach evaluating capacity of the electrical storage for providing the request for the first level of the power boost to the traction motors; and determining that the capacity is sufficient for providing the request to the traction motors. However, Salasoo teaches a method and system for extending life of a vehicle energy storage device, “wherein an energy management system monitors the operating conditions of a locomotive's on-board electrical energy storage device and accordingly adjusts the charging/discharging profile so as to maximize the operating life of the device. The charging cycle of the energy storage device may be optimized into a plurality of sub-charging cycles that match the expected performance and life of the device.” (Para. [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to monitor the capacity of the electrical storage to determine sufficient power during a discharging cycle, as suggested by Salasoo, in order to optimize charging/discharging of the battery and maximize the operating life of the device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 19: Cook does not specifically teach evaluating the power boost over time with respect to temperature rise in the traction motors; and curtailing the power boost if the temperature rise exceeds thermal ratings for the traction motors. Although, Cook does recognize the effect temperature has on traction motors as follows, “As a DC traction motors speed increases its operating voltage increases. An electric motors power capacity is limited by how much internally generated heat that it can withstand. The internal heat generated by an electric motor is more a function of the current flowing through it than the voltage applied to it.” However, Salasoo teaches a method and system for extending life of a vehicle energy storage device, wherein the temperature of the locomotive components, such as the traction motor, is controlled (Para. [0024]) and battery temperature is monitored (Fig. 5) such that power transfer may be curtailed (step 512) to keep temperature below a predetermined threshold (Para. [0059-0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Cook to monitor the temperature of the locomotive components, such as the traction motor and batteries, and curtail power transfer if the temperature exceeds a threshold, as suggested by Salasoo, in order to prevent overheating of locomotive components and thereby optimize discharging of the battery and maximize the operating life of the device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617