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 FINAL office action on the merits. Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-19 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/01/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-19 are maintained in rejection despite Applicant’s arguments/amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14, and 18-19 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) and Ehmke et al. (US 20170169145 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 train wheel (railroad wheel; para. 0021) 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) 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).
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.
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).
Regarding claim 2, 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 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 6, Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the at least one radar unit (12) comprises the processor (28).
Regarding claim 8, Tron further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the emitted radio waves are coherent radar pulses (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 9, 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 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 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 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(s) 11 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), Ehmke et al. (US 20170169145 A1), and Amizur et al. (US 20220196798 A1).
Regarding claim 11, 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 Woop (DE 19826422 A1, provided), Ehmke et al. (US 20170169145 A1), and Kristen et al. (US 9395276 B2).
Regarding claim 12, 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 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 Woop (DE 19826422 A1, provided), Ehmke et al. (US 20170169145 A1), and Snyder (US 11964681 B2).
Regarding claim 15, 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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Tron does not disclose arranging the radar unit on a bogie of a train. It teaches mounting the radar system on a "drive shaft (axle) 134," a "fender 118," or within a "wheel well 117" (Tron at paragraphs [0023], [0040]-[0041]).
The office responds that Tron discloses a radar 12 mounted on a vehicle structural element 14, wherein the wheel assembly may be a railroad wheel (Tron, para. 0021; Fig. 1). Additionally, the office used a secondary reference Woop to teach a radar unit on a bogie of a train, to modify Tron (see rejection of Claim 4 in the Non-Final Rejection). In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that Tron does not disclose determining flange height, flange thickness, or flange slope quota. Automobile tires do not have flanges. Consequently, Tron is entirely silent on the concept of a wheel flange, let alone the specific geometric parameters of flange height, thickness, or slope quota as required by amended claim 1.
The office responds that Tron discloses a radar 12 mounted on a vehicle structural element 14, wherein the wheel assembly may be a railroad wheel (Tron, para. 0021; Fig. 1). Additionally, the office used a secondary reference Ehmke to teach radars provided for monitoring at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota of a wheel, to modify Tron (see rejection of Claim 7 in the Non-Final Rejection). In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that Ehmke discloses a trackside system, not a system arranged on the train's bogie. While Ehmke does teach a system for determining train wheel parameters including wheel flange height Sh, wheel flange width, and wheel flange gradient, its system is fundamentally different. The sensors in Ehmke are arranged stationary, next to the rail on the track, not on the train itself. In contrast, amended claim 1 explicitly defines a system having a radar unit arranged on a bogie of the train.
The office responds that the reference Ehmke is not used to teach a location of the sensors, but rather the concept of monitoring at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota of a wheel. The limitation of “a system having a radar unit arranged on a bogie of the train” is taught by the references Tron and Woop. In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation within Ehmke to take its measurement functionality and attempt to implement it in a completely different, mobile architecture like Tron's. The POSITA would view these as competing design choices, not as complementary components to be integrated.
The office responds that Tron already discloses a radar 12 mounted on a vehicle structural element 14, wherein the wheel assembly may be a railroad wheel entirely composed of a metal rim (Tron, para. 0021; Fig. 1). Using Ehmke to teach the concept of monitoring at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota of a railroad wheel, using the existing radar sensors of Tron would not lead to competing design choices.
The applicant argues that the solution taught by Woop (DE 19826422) is a derailment detector. It does not measure fine geometric details of a wheel. Woop at most teaches that a bogie-mounted radar doppler sensor is a safety device for monitoring the rail, not the wheel flange. To follow Woop's teaching would lead the POSITA towards using a radar sensor to measure derailment, not flange parameters.
The office responds that Woop is merely used to teach the concept of mounting a radar sensor to the bogie of a train, and not the detection capabilities of the radar. A radar system for measuring wheel parameters is taught by the primary reference Tron. In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that the POSITA would not consider implementing teaching from Ehmke into the system of Tron, because the two references disclose fundamentally incompatible system architectures. Tron teaches a mobile, on-board system for automobile tires, while Ehmke teaches a stationary, trackside system for train wheel flanges.
The office responds that Tron already discloses a radar 12 mounted on a vehicle structural element 14, wherein the wheel assembly may be a railroad wheel entirely composed of a metal rim (Tron, para. 0021; Fig. 1). Using Ehmke to teach the concept of monitoring at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota of a railroad wheel, using the existing radar sensors of Tron would not lead to competing design choices.
The applicant argues that even if the POSITA looked at Ehmke, it provides no motivation or guidance towards placing a radar sensor on a mobile platform, such as the one in Tron, nor on how to overcome the significant technical challenges (e.g., vibration, alignment) of transferring its precision measurement function to a mobile, on-board platform like Tron's.
The office responds that Ehmke is merely used to teach the concept of monitoring at least one of a flange height, a flange thickness and a flange slope quota of a wheel, which is being used to modify the existing radar of Tron. Ehmke is not being used to teach placing a radar sensor on a mobile platform. In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that the POSITA would not look at Woop, since the POSITA searching for solutions to a geometric measurement problem, such as flange measurements, would consult the art of non-contact profilers, laser scanners, optical systems, or specific wheel wear measurement systems like Ehmke. They would have no motivation to search in the distinct and non-analogous field of derailment alarms.
The office responds that the reference Woop is in the same analogous field of a radar sensor for a rail vehicle as the primary reference Tron.
The applicant argues that even if the POSITA looked at Woop, it would be clear that it is not concerned with metrology. Instead, it addresses the problem of how to detect a catastrophic derailment event. Woop's teaching is directed to a different problem (derailment) and a different target (the rail). It therefore provides no suggestion to try to re-purpose this bogie-mounted sensor for the entirely different and more complex task of measuring the geometric parameters of a wheel flange.
The office responds that the reference Woop is in the same analogous field of a radar sensor for a rail vehicle as the primary reference Tron.
The applicant argues that even if the POSITA were to contemplate an on-board radar system for measuring flange parameters, the prior art of record would lead them away from selecting the bogie as the mounting location. The teachings in Tron, Woop and Ehmke either suggest alternative locations, teach a different purpose for a bogie-mounted sensor, or highlight technical challenges that would discourage a bogie-mounted arrangement for precise geometric measurement.
The office responds that Tron discloses a radar 12 mounted on a vehicle structural element 14, wherein the wheel assembly measured by the radar may be a railroad wheel entirely composed of a metal rim (Tron, para. 0021; Fig. 1). It would be reasonable to mount the radar of Tron to a location close to the railroad wheel, such as the bogie (taught by Woop, Fig. 1).
The applicant argues that the explicit teachings of Tron would motivate the POSITA to attempt mounting the sensor either on the train's axle or on the car body. The prior art provides no suggestion or motivation to introduce the additional complexity of mounting the unit on the bogie, a component not contemplated by Tron.
The office responds that Tron discloses a radar 12 mounted on a vehicle structural element 14, wherein the wheel assembly measured by the radar may be a railroad wheel entirely composed of a metal rim (Tron, para. 0021; Fig. 1). It would be reasonable to mount the radar of Tron to a location close to the railroad wheel, such as the bogie (taught by Woop, Fig. 1).
The applicant argues that radar is understood to have a lower spatial resolution than focused laser beams. For measuring fine geometric details like the "flange slope quota" or the precise radius of the flange root, the POSITA would be highly skeptical that an on-board radar system, subject to vibration and a changing target aspect, could achieve the required accuracy. The direct, fine-point measurement of a laser would appear far more suitable and reliable. Correspondingly, the POSITA would realize that the radar unit used in Woop for checking the rail for derailment is a low resolution/precision system, which would not be suitable for determining flange parameters.
The office responds that the reference Woop is not used for disclosing a radar suitable for determining flange parameters. This is instead taught by the reference Ehmke (see previous rejection of claim 7 in the Non-Final Rejection). In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
The applicant argues that the POSITA would also recognize that a radar system, which uses radio waves, would be highly susceptible to multi-path reflections from the bogie frame, suspension components, brake rigging, and the wheel itself. These spurious signals would create significant noise and make it very difficult to isolate the true reflection from the flange profile. The POSITA would instead consider a laser as discussed, with its narrow, focused beam, which largely avoids this problem. This significant problem would serve as a deterrent against arranging a radar sensor in a bogie on a train for measuring flange parameters.
The office responds that the secondary reference Woop teaches a radar sensor (8) mounted on the railway bogie. This feature is also disclosed by the applicant’s present invention. It is not necessary to change Tron’s radar sensor to a laser senser to be mounted on a railway bogie.
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 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
Prosecution Insights