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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. SE2250761-0, filed on 06/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023, 12/26/2023 and 05/19/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tron et al. (US 20170254897 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tron teaches (Fig. 1-3): radar system (radar monitoring system 10) for determining a status (detect tire abnormalities or defects) of at least one wheel of a train (para. 0004-0005), the radar system (10) comprising: at least one radar unit (radar 12) arranged on the train (on vehicle structural element 14, separate from the railroad wheel; para. 0021), comprising: an emitter (radar antenna 24) configured to emit radio waves (beam) towards the at least one wheel (to spoke 22 of rim 18; para. 0031; Fig. 1), and a detector, configured to detect at least a portion of the radio waves reflected from the at least one wheel and generate detector data (reflection is detected by radar 12 and output on interconnect 26 to processor 28; para. 0031; Fig. 1), wherein the radar system (10) is configured to determine a wheel status at least partially based on the generated detector data (abnormality and wheel speed detection through processor 28; para. 0028, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 2, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radar system (10) is configured to determine a wheel status (abnormality or wheel speed) based at least partially on an incident angle (reflected RF energy; para. 0022, lines 3-9) to the at least one radar unit (10) for a detected radio wave (reflection) of the radio waves (para. 0022).
Regarding claim 3, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radar system (10) is configured to determine the wheel status (abnormality) at least partially based on the difference between a predetermined wheel status and the wheel status (determine abnormality by comparing current wheel status to a threshold; para. 0025 and 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radar system (10) comprises a processor (processor 28) configured to determine the wheel status based at least partially on the detector data (abnormality and wheel speed detection through processor 28; para. 0028, lines 20-25), wherein the wheel status comprises at least one of a wheel parameter and a surface condition of the at least one wheel (para. 0002).
Regarding claim 6, Tron teaches the elements of claim 5 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the at least one radar unit (12) comprises the processor (28).
Regarding claim 8, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the emitted radio waves are coherent radar pulses (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 9, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radio waves, emitted by the emitter (radar antenna 24), comprises electromagnetic radiation in the radio spectrum with a frequency in the range of 3Hz - 3000GHz (24 GHz or 2MHz operations are disclosed, which are within the range 3Hz-3000GHz; para 0026).
Regarding claim 10, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the at least one radar unit (12) comprises an emitter antenna (radar antenna 24) configured to direct the radio waves in a predetermined direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the at least one radar unit (12) comprises at least one attachment unit (vehicle structural element 14), configured to removably attach the at least one radar unit to the train (para. 0021).
Regarding claim 18, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radar system (10) comprises a plurality of radar units (12) for the at least one wheel respectively (Fig. 1).
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claim 19, note that the operation of the prior structure inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tron et al. (US 20170254897 A1), in view of Woop (DE 19826422 A1, provided).
Regarding claim 4, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1): the radar (12) is mounted on a vehicle structural element (14)(para. 0021), but does not explicitly teach that the at least one radar unit is arranged on a bogie of the train.
However, Woop teaches an alternate radar system, wherein (Fig. 1): at least one radar unit (radar doppler sensor 8) is arranged on a bogie (bogie 2) of the train.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron to arrange the at least one radar unit on a bogie, as disclosed by Woop, with a reasonable expectation of success because a bogie is also known to house the wheels of the train, allowing the radar units to monitor the wheels at a close, fixed distance.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tron et al. (US 20170254897 A1), in view of Ehmke et al. (US 20170169145 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tron teaches the elements of claim 5 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radar antenna (24) is to direct a beam to a rim (18), but does not explicitly teach that the monitored wheel parameter comprises at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota.
However, Ehmke teaches an alternate radar system for a railway vehicle wheel, wherein (Fig. 3): two radar sensors (3) are provided for monitoring a wheel parameter comprising at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota (para. 0023; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron to monitor a wheel flange height or thickness with the radar sensors, as disclosed by Ehmke, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would help in the determination of the wear state of a wheel profile (Ehmke, para. 0023).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tron et al. (US 20170254897 A1), in view of Amizur et al. (US 20220196798 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tron teaches the elements of claim 10 above. Tron teaches (Fig. 1-3): the emitter antenna (radar antenna 24), but does not explicitly teach that the emitter antenna comprises a lens unit.
However, Amizur teaches an alternate wave radar device for a vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1): an emitter antenna comprises a lens unit (a lens antenna system; Amizur, claims 19-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron to include a lens unit with the emitter antenna, as disclosed by Amizur, with a reasonable expectation of success because a lens unit would improve the antenna’s range and accuracy, and allow for flexible beam shaping for high-frequency applications.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tron et al. (US 20170254897 A1), in view of Kristen et al. (US 9395276 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the at least one radar unit (12), but does not explicitly teach that the radar unit comprises a wireless transmitter configured to transmit at least part of the detector data and/or the wheel status.
However, Kristen teaches an alternate railway wheels defects detection system, wherein: a sensor comprises a wireless transmitter (wireless transceiver) configured to transmit at least part of a detector data and/or the wheel status (i.e. acceleration data or wheel flat; Kristen, col. 9, lines 21-36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron to include a wireless transmitter on the wheel sensing unit for transmitting a detector data or wheel status, as disclosed by Kristen, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the radar unit to send a potential wheel defect to the train’s control unit or driver for appropriate action (i.e. stopping the train), ensuring passenger safety.
Regarding claim 13, Tron and Kristen teach the elements of claim 12 above. Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the radar system (10) comprises a control unit (vehicle control system 30), wherein the control unit (30) is configured to receive at least part of the detector data and/or the wheel status (O1 and O2) from the at least one radar unit (12)(Fig, 1; para. 0024).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tron et al. (US 20170254897 A1), in view of Snyder (US 11964681 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron does not explicitly teach that the attachment unit comprises a magnet unit.
However, Snyder teaches an alternate train bogie monitoring device, wherein (Fig. 1): an attachment unit (mounting bracket) for a bogie monitoring device (104) comprises a magnet unit (col. 14, lines 15-22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron to magnetically mount the radar unit to the train’s mounting bracket, as disclosed by Snyder, with a reasonable expectation of success because magnetic mounting offers a non-damaging and reusable installation for the radar system, allowing it to be easily adjustable or repositioned.
Regarding claim 16, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron does not explicitly teach that the at least one radar unit comprises a battery.
However, Snyder teaches an alternate train bogie monitoring device, wherein (Fig. 1): a bogie monitoring device (104) includes a power source or battery (col. 9, lines 29-31).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron to include a battery with the sensing device, as disclosed by Snyder, with a reasonable expectation of success because the battery serves as a backup power source in case power is cut off, allowing the radar unit to function independently without external power source.
Regarding claim 17, Tron teaches the elements of claim 1 above. Tron does not explicitly teach that the at least one radar unit is integrally formed.
However, Snyder teaches an alternate train bogie monitoring device, wherein (Fig. 1): a bogie monitoring device (104) is integrally formed with the bolster (316) of the railcar (103)(col. 14, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tron integrally form the radar unit with the train’s bogies, as disclosed by Snyder, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the train’s bogies to be manufactured with defect sensors, and provide ease of assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a radar system for rail vehicle wheels: US-6416020-B1, US-20020189336-A1, US-20200122754-A1, US-20210078619-A1, US-20210276527-A1, WO-9200214-A1, CN-107430185-B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615