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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 22 October, 2025 has been entered. Claims 6-8 have been added. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 22 October, 2025, with respect to the objection to Applicant’s Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The replacement Abstract has been entered. The objection to Applicant’s Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim has been amended to correct the error. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim has been amended to clarify the indefinite language. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
The claimed system requires physical sensors and mechanical interaction within an air spring brake chamber – a specific, tangible vehicle component.
The pressure and temperature values are not abstract information but measured physical quantities derived from pneumatic and thermal conditions of a real-world apparatus.
The functions of the pressure measurement unit, the brake lining temperature sensing unit, and the notification unit cannot be performed in the human mind, on paper, or by any purely mental operation.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and its updates (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2); USPTO Example 37, "Sensor-Controlled Machine"), claims that detect or control physical parameters of machinery using sensors are not abstract. See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. US, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims using sensors to improve a physical system held patent-eligible) and CardioNet LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (eligibility confirmed where system detects physiological conditions and provides medical alerts).
The claimed system goes beyond data collection by performing a diagnostic operation – determining whether the pressure and temperature values indicate an abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber – and by producing a tangible safety effect through alarm generation. These physical functions cannot be performed mentally. This is not a "mental process" but a mechanical and electronic process implemented in hardware.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. First, the rejection of record under 35 USC 101 does not allege that the functions of the pressure measurement unit and the brake lining temperature sensing unit are abstract ideas, but rather that they are equivalent to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality which amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. The function of the notification unit is a mental process which can practically be performed in the human mind, as the function of determining if an alarm should be generated based on a pressure measurement value and a temperature measurement value does not require a specific tangible vehicle component and, as claimed, is merely implemented by a generic computing device. Second, in the case of Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, the invention was found to be directed to eligible subject matter under step 2B because the invention provided an improvement in sensor technology by providing a particular configuration of sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In the case of CardioNet LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., the invention was found to be integrated into a practical application to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition under step 2A prong 2. Neither of these cases are analogous to the determination that the instant case recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
Applicant further argues:
The claimed elements are integral to the operation of the air spring brake chamber and are used to detect abnormal situations and generate alarms in a vehicle braking environment.
The pressure measurement unit and the brake lining temperature sensing unit are physically installed in the brake chamber and brake lining, respectively, and the notification unit is configured to produce a signal that directly improves vehicle safety by alerting to chamber faults.
This integration is precisely the kind of "meaningful limitation" described in MPEP §2106.04(d) and the USPTO's eligibility examples, such as Example 40 ("Vehicle Sensor System").
The claim recites a practical application of any alleged concept to a specific technological environment – namely, an air spring brake chamber – and thereby satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2.
The Examiner's statement that pressure and temperature measurements constitute "mere data gathering" overlooks that such measurements are the core of the invention's technical improvement.
The claimed system provides continuous physical monitoring of pneumatic and thermal conditions that cannot be performed mentally and that enable automatic fault recognition before mechanical failure occurs.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The measurement of the pressure and temperature values are recited at a high level of generality in the claims and therefore do not constitute a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The mental process of diagnosing an abnormal situation is merely generally linked to the field of braking technology (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Applicant further argues:
The claimed units are not generic computing elements; they are specific components configured for pressure and temperature sensing within a brake system.
The specification describes how these elements are connected to the parking and service chambers and the brake lining to generate chamber-specific alarms (see Specification, e.g., pp. 41-47).
This combination of multiple physical sensors and a notification mechanism constitutes an inventive arrangement that improves fault detection in vehicle braking technology. Such an arrangement is not "well-understood, routine, and conventional," as required for a finding of ineligibility under Step 2B.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. As set forth below in the rejections related to prior art, using sensors to measure pressure and temperature in the arrangement recited in the instant claims is a function that is known in the art of vehicle navigation and control. Therefore, the claims do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 expressly requires that the notification unit generates "an alarm about an abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber for the vehicle based on a pressure measurement value of the pressure measurement unit and a temperature measurement value of the brake lining temperature sensing unit."
Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches generating an alarm based on both pressure and temperature measurements in relation to the air spring brake chamber.
In the proposed combination, each sensor in the cited references would operate independently – Teyssier's pressure detection merely indicates park brake status, while Reinecke's temperature detection prevents overheating. There is no teaching or suggestion that these independent detections would be combined or logically linked to determine an abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber as claimed.
Moreover, the Examiner has not provided an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for why one skilled in the art would have modified either system to use both measurements as joint inputs for a single alarm decision. Implementing such integration would require reconfiguring both systems' circuitry and control logic beyond routine experimentation, without any apparent benefit suggested by the references.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the notification unit being configured to “generate an alarm about an abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber for the vehicle based on a pressure measurement value of the pressure measurement unit and a temperature measurement value of the brake lining temperature sensing unit” would include, for example, a functionality wherein the notification unit receives both the pressure measurement value and the temperature measurement value and generates an alarm if either value exceeds a respective threshold. This functionality is taught by the combination of Teyssier in view of Reinecke wherein an alarm is generated when either the pressure measurement value exceeds a threshold (see Teyssier Paragraph 0086 A possible park brake failure that is detected by the method according to this invention is the case wherein park brake actuation is selected by the vehicle driver for example by pulling a park brake hand lever but the park brake is not actually applied to the brakes. In this case the actuation park brake signal is not energized and/or a hazard signal is energised to notify the driver that the park brake is not under its actuated status. With this piece of information, the vehicle driver can take any appropriate emergency action such as, for example, engaging a gear to maintain the vehicle at a standstill.) or when the temperature measurement value exceeds a threshold (see Reinecke Col 14 line 15 Finally, the temperature sensors can also be used to monitor the wheel brakes, specifically the brake linings or the brake discs or the brake drums, to a specified maximum temperature. In this case, an electrical indicator and/or alarm circuit is controlled by means of the temperature signals.). One would have been motivated to combine the functionality of Teyssier with the functionality of Reinecke in order to use the temperature condition of each brake to regulate the braking force in each brake (See Reinecke Col 13 line 14 The invention offers the possibility of the combination of such a load-controlled braking force regulator with a regulation to equalize the braking value or temperature. For example, the electronic control system can form the command value in the partial braking range below an upper limit of the braking pressure supplied by the brake application apparatus or its activation force or its application distance to equalization, and beyond that, as a function of the load.).
Applicant further argues:
Claim 2 requires that the alarm is generated when:
(1) a parking pressure value in at least one parking chamber is equal to or lower than a predetermined pressure, and
(2) a service pressure value is maintained at or above a predetermined pressure for a predetermined time, or the pressure difference between service chambers is equal to or larger than a predetermined value.
Teyssier simply determines whether a park brake chamber is pressurized or not, as described in paragraphs [0007]-[0008]. It neither measures multiple service chambers nor evaluates pressure over time or among plural wheels.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. Teyssier does teach generating an alarm in both of the recited scenarios. Teyssier teaches generating an alarm when a parking pressure value detected in at least one of a plurality of parking chambers at a plurality of wheels of the vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined pressure (see Teyssier Paragraph 0008 When no air pressure is measured in the park brake chamber, the park brake is regarded as activated; a dashboard light and/or a reminder buzzer can notify the driver that the park brake is applied.). Teyssier also generates an alarm when a service pressure value detected in at least one of a plurality of service chambers at the plurality of wheels of the vehicle is maintained at or above a predetermined pressure for a predetermined time (Paragraph 0063 The pneumatic test signal Pt is applied for a period of time Tl that can be comprised between 5 ms to 20 ms. In a step 120, the pneumatic test signal Pt is maintained in the service brake chamber 12 for a period of time T2 which should be long enough to obtain a response pressure. For example, T2 can be comprised between 5 ms and 10 ms. Paragraph 0065 In a step 210, the response pressure is compared against a high threshold pressure value Ph indicating a low volume of the service brake chamber 12 and against a low threshold pressure value Pl indicating a high volume of the service brake chamber 12.). Further, Teyssier does teach implementing the functionality on multiple service chambers of multiple wheels of a vehicle (see Teyssier Paragraph 0045 Each vehicle axle can be equipped with a brake cylinder similar to the brake cylinder 1 represented on FIG. 1.).
Applicant further argues:
Accordingly, Langbein does not disclose or suggest a warning lamp unit that operates based on pressure or temperature information from the air spring brake chamber, nor transmitting vehicle brake data as recited.
Even if combined with Teyssier and Reinecke, the result would still be a collection of independent subsystems, not the claimed integrated warning lamp unit.
A skilled artisan would have no motivation to adapt Langbein's emergency call system to operate in response to diagnostic pressure and temperature signals, nor a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, because the systems serve different purposes and employ different triggering mechanisms.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The rejection of record does not rely of Langbein to teach generating an alarm based on pressure and temperature information (this functionality is taught by Teyssier in view of Reinecke). Rather, Langbein teaches transmits information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period (see Langbein Page 5 line 14 ...in the event of an emergency, local optical and acoustic signals are emitted which, after a predetermined selectable time interval, if they are not acknowledged by the driver to be monitored, a trigger automatic, repetitive emergency calls in a control center.). One would have been motivated to combine the functionality of Teyssier in view of Reinecke with the functionality of Langbein in order to allow the user to silence a false alarm before an alert is transmitted to the control center (See Langbein Page 2 line 39 This out transmitted optical and acoustic signals serve the vehicle leaders on the one hand as a warning signal and can, depending on the will, to avoid them a false alarm can be interrupted by the driver, on the other hand is activated if the driver does not acknowledge the warning signal Automatic emergency call to a control center triggered.), which would be desirable in any alarm system regardless of what purpose the system is generating an alarm for.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Regarding claim 1, using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claim is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does the claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The function performed by the system in claim 1 includes limitations that may be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. The system merely generates an alarm about an abnormal situation based on a pressure measurement value and a temperature measurement value. This is equivalent to a person mentally determining if an abnormal situation exists based on pressure and temperature information for the air spring brake chamber. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, if one was presented with information regarding the pressure and temperature of the air spring brake chamber, one could mentally generate an alarm about an abnormal situation.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites that the pressure measurement unit and brake lining temperature sensing unit are configured to measure pressure and temperature respectively in the brake. Measuring pressure and temperature is equivalent to mere data gathering which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the notification unit is equivalent to a generic computing device. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not merely insignificant extra-solution activities. As discussed above, the pressure and temperature measurement functions are equivalent to insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of a data gathering is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Also, as set forth below in the rejections related to prior art, using sensors to measure pressure and temperature is a function that is known in the art of vehicle navigation and control.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 7 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 with claim 1
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 further limit the abstract idea of the independent claim without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, claim 2 recites limitations regarding the conditions of the pressure values which constitute an abnormal situation. However, one could still determine if the pressure values satisfy the conditions practically in the human mind. Therefore, claim 2 recites a mental process. As a further example, claim 4 recites that the warning lamp unit turns on a warning lamp according to the pressure or temperature. This is equivalent to merely displaying information as a result of the mental process which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited mental process. As a final example, claim 5 recites recording that an emergency brake has operated when conditions are met. Recording information is equivalent to merely transmitting information to a storage which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited mental process.
Independent claim 7 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 with claim 4. Therefore, the same subject matter eligibility analysis can be applied to claim 7 as was applied to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyssier (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0174464) in view of Reinecke (U.S. Patent 4,685,745).
Regarding claim 1, Teyssier teaches a fault diagnostic system of an air spring brake chamber for a vehicle, in which the air spring brake chamber for the vehicle includes a head housing (Paragraph 0048 The brake cylinder 1 also incorporates a park brake housing 3 which is juxtaposed to the service brake housing 2.), a bottom housing (Paragraph 0046 The service brake housing 2…) and an adaptor housing between the head housing and the bottom housing (See FIG. 1), a piston between the head housing and the adaptor housing (Paragraph 0048 A pneumatic pressure is applied to the park brake diaphragm 15 which moves the park brake pushrod 16 to an inward non actuated position…), and a diaphragm secured between the adaptor housing and the bottom housing to divide a space between the adaptor housing and the bottom housing (Paragraph 0046 The service brake housing 2 incorporates a flexible diaphragm 4 having a periphery retained by the service brake housing 2 and a brake pushrod 5.), the fault diagnostic system comprising: a pressure measurement unit configured to measure a pressure in each of a parking chamber between the piston and the adaptor housing (Paragraph 0007 A pressure sensor or a pressure switch can be fitted on the input port of the park brake chamber so as to monitor the pressure in said chamber.) and a service chamber between the adaptor housing and the diaphragm (Paragraph 0064 In a further step 130, the response pressure of the service brake chamber 12 is measured. This measure is carried out by pressure sensors that are incorporated in the EBS.); and a notification unit configured to generate an alarm about an abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber for the vehicle based on a pressure measurement value of the pressure measurement unit (Paragraph 0086 A possible park brake failure that is detected by the method according to this invention is the case wherein park brake actuation is selected by the vehicle driver for example by pulling a park brake hand lever but the park brake is not actually applied to the brakes. In this case the actuation park brake signal is not energized and/or a hazard signal is energised to notify the driver that the park brake is not under its actuated status. With this piece of information, the vehicle driver can take any appropriate emergency action such as, for example, engaging a gear to maintain the vehicle at a standstill.).
However, Teyssier does not teach a brake lining temperature sensing unit connected to a brake lining to detect a temperature of the brake lining; and a notification unit configured to generate an alarm about an abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber for the vehicle based on a temperature measurement value of the brake lining temperature sensing unit.
Reinecke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring the condition of a brake. The system detects a temperature of the brake lining and generates an alarm based on the temperature of the brake exceeding a maximum temperature (Col 14 line 15 Finally, the temperature sensors can also be used to monitor the wheel brakes, specifically the brake linings or the brake discs or the brake drums, to a specified maximum temperature. In this case, an electrical indicator and/or alarm circuit is controlled by means of the temperature signals.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier with the teachings of Reinecke which teaches detecting a temperature of the brake lining and generating an alarm based on the temperature of the brake exceeding a maximum temperature in order to use the temperature condition of each brake to regulate the braking force in each brake (See Reinecke Col 13 line 14 The invention offers the possibility of the combination of such a load-controlled braking force regulator with a regulation to equalize the braking value or temperature. For example, the electronic control system can form the command value in the partial braking range below an upper limit of the braking pressure supplied by the brake application apparatus or its activation force or its application distance to equalization, and beyond that, as a function of the load.).
Regarding claim 2, Teyssier in view of Reinecke teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Teyssier further teaches wherein the notification unit generates the alarm about the abnormal situation in the air spring brake chamber for the vehicle when a parking pressure value detected in at least one of a plurality of parking chambers at a plurality of wheels of the vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined pressure (Paragraph 0008 When no air pressure is measured in the park brake chamber, the park brake is regarded as activated; a dashboard light and/or a reminder buzzer can notify the driver that the park brake is applied.), and a service pressure value detected in at least one of a plurality of service chambers at the plurality of wheels of the vehicle is maintained at or above a predetermined pressure for a predetermined time (Paragraph 0063 The pneumatic test signal Pt is applied for a period of time Tl that can be comprised between 5 ms to 20 ms. In a step 120, the pneumatic test signal Pt is maintained in the service brake chamber 12 for a period of time T2 which should be long enough to obtain a response pressure. For example, T2 can be comprised between 5 ms and 10 ms. Paragraph 0065 In a step 210, the response pressure is compared against a high threshold pressure value Ph indicating a low volume of the service brake chamber 12 and against a low threshold pressure value Pl indicating a high volume of the service brake chamber 12.) or a pressure difference of each service chamber is equal to or larger than a predetermined value (Paragraph 0070 If the measured response pressure is above the high threshold pressure value, the CPU identifies the park brake as being in a released state. The fact that the response pressure is above the high threshold pressure value indicates that the volume of the service brake chamber 12 is at a minimum and therefore the park brake is in a released state.).
Regarding claim 3, Teyssier in view of Reinecke teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Teyssier does not teach wherein the brake lining temperature sensing unit classifies the temperature detected in the brake lining into stages or sets a temperature resistance table and determines the faulty brake when the temperature corresponds to a specific stage or a specific condition.
Reinecke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring the condition of a brake. The system detects a temperature of the brake lining and generates an alarm based on the temperature of the brake exceeding a maximum temperature (Col 14 line 15 Finally, the temperature sensors can also be used to monitor the wheel brakes, specifically the brake linings or the brake discs or the brake drums, to a specified maximum temperature. In this case, an electrical indicator and/or alarm circuit is controlled by means of the temperature signals.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier with the teachings of Reinecke which teaches detecting a temperature of the brake lining and generating an alarm based on the temperature of the brake exceeding a maximum temperature in order to use the temperature condition of each brake to regulate the braking force in each brake (See Reinecke Col 13 line 14 The invention offers the possibility of the combination of such a load-controlled braking force regulator with a regulation to equalize the braking value or temperature. For example, the electronic control system can form the command value in the partial braking range below an upper limit of the braking pressure supplied by the brake application apparatus or its activation force or its application distance to equalization, and beyond that, as a function of the load.).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyssier in view of Reinecke and Langbein (German Patent Publication DE19854047).
Regarding claim 4, Teyssier in view of Reinecke teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Teyssier further teaches a warning lamp unit configured to receive data from the pressure measurement unit and the brake lining temperature sensing unit and turn on a warning lamp according to the pressure (Paragraph 0086 A possible park brake failure that is detected by the method according to this invention is the case wherein park brake actuation is selected by the vehicle driver for example by pulling a park brake hand lever but the park brake is not actually applied to the brakes. In this case the actuation park brake signal is not energized and/or a hazard signal is energised to notify the driver that the park brake is not under its actuated status. With this piece of information, the vehicle driver can take any appropriate emergency action such as, for example, engaging a gear to maintain the vehicle at a standstill.).
However, Teyssier in view of Reinecke does not teach wherein the warning lamp unit provides the data of the corresponding vehicle to a control center or a nearby vehicle when a user has not checked the warning lamp within a predetermined time after the warning lamp was turned on.
Langbein, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring failures of vehicle systems. The system automatically transmits information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period (Page 5 line 14 ...in the event of an emergency, local optical and acoustic signals are emitted which, after a predetermined selectable time interval, if they are not acknowledged by the driver to be monitored, a trigger automatic, repetitive emergency calls in a control center.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier in view of Reinecke with the teachings of Langbein which teaches automatically transmitting information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period in order to allow the user to silence a false alarm before an alert is transmitted to the control center (See Langbein Page 2 line 39 This out transmitted optical and acoustic signals serve the vehicle leaders on the one hand as a warning signal and can, depending on the will, to avoid them a false alarm can be interrupted by the driver, on the other hand is activated if the driver does not acknowledge the warning signal Automatic emergency call to a control center triggered.).
Regarding claim 6, Teyssier in view of Reinecke and Langbein teaches the system of claim 4 as set forth above. However, Teyssier in view of Reinecke does not teach wherein the warning lamp unit provides the data of the corresponding vehicle to the control center or the nearby vehicle only when both a pressure difference of the service chambers is equal to or larger than a predetermined value and a temperature detected by the brake lining temperature sensing unit is maintained at or above a predetermined temperature for the predetermined time after the warning lamp was turned on.
Langbein, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring failures of vehicle systems. The system automatically transmits information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period (Page 5 line 14 ...in the event of an emergency, local optical and acoustic signals are emitted which, after a predetermined selectable time interval, if they are not acknowledged by the driver to be monitored, a trigger automatic, repetitive emergency calls in a control center.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier in view of Reinecke with the teachings of Langbein which teaches automatically transmitting information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period in order to allow the user to silence a false alarm before an alert is transmitted to the control center (See Langbein Page 2 line 39 This out transmitted optical and acoustic signals serve the vehicle leaders on the one hand as a warning signal and can, depending on the will, to avoid them a false alarm can be interrupted by the driver, on the other hand is activated if the driver does not acknowledge the warning signal Automatic emergency call to a control center triggered.).
Regarding claim 7, Teyssier teaches a fault diagnostic system for an air spring brake chamber of a vehicle, the air spring brake chamber including a head housing (Paragraph 0048 The brake cylinder 1 also incorporates a park brake housing 3 which is juxtaposed to the service brake housing 2.), a bottom housing (Paragraph 0046 The service brake housing 2…), an adaptor housing between the head housing and the bottom housing (See FIG. 1), a piston between the head housing and the adaptor housing (Paragraph 0048 A pneumatic pressure is applied to the park brake diaphragm 15 which moves the park brake pushrod 16 to an inward non actuated position…), and a diaphragm secured between the adaptor housing and the bottom housing to divide a space between the adaptor housing and the bottom housing (Paragraph 0046 The service brake housing 2 incorporates a flexible diaphragm 4 having a periphery retained by the service brake housing 2 and a brake pushrod 5.), the fault diagnostic system comprising: a pressure measurement unit including a plurality of pressure sensors respectively connected to a parking chamber between the piston and the adaptor housing (Paragraph 0007 A pressure sensor or a pressure switch can be fitted on the input port of the park brake chamber so as to monitor the pressure in said chamber.) and a service chamber between the adaptor housing and the diaphragm, each pressure sensor configured to generate an electrical signal corresponding to a measured pressure (Paragraph 0064 In a further step 130, the response pressure of the service brake chamber 12 is measured. This measure is carried out by pressure sensors that are incorporated in the EBS.); a control box electrically connected to the pressure measurement unit and the brake lining temperature sensing unit, the control box configured to: receive the pressure signals, compare the received signals with predetermined reference values stored therein, and determine that an abnormal situation exists in the air spring brake chamber when the pressure signals satisfy predetermined abnormality conditions (Paragraph 0086 A possible park brake failure that is detected by the method according to this invention is the case wherein park brake actuation is selected by the vehicle driver for example by pulling a park brake hand lever but the park brake is not actually applied to the brakes. In this case the actuation park brake signal is not energized and/or a hazard signal is energised to notify the driver that the park brake is not under its actuated status. With this piece of information, the vehicle driver can take any appropriate emergency action such as, for example, engaging a gear to maintain the vehicle at a standstill.); and a notification unit including an indicator disposed at a driver’s seat and a warning lamp unit, the notification unit configured to output an alarm signal through the indicator to alert the abnormal situation (Paragraph 0086 A possible park brake failure that is detected by the method according to this invention is the case wherein park brake actuation is selected by the vehicle driver for example by pulling a park brake hand lever but the park brake is not actually applied to the brakes. In this case the actuation park brake signal is not energized and/or a hazard signal is energised to notify the driver that the park brake is not under its actuated status. With this piece of information, the vehicle driver can take any appropriate emergency action such as, for example, engaging a gear to maintain the vehicle at a standstill.).
However, Teyssier does not teach a brake lining temperature sensing unit connected to a brake lining to detect a temperature of the brake lining; and a control box electrically connected to the pressure measurement unit and the brake lining temperature sensing unit, the control box configured to :receive the pressure and temperature signals, compare the received signals with predetermined reference values stored therein, and determine that an abnormal situation exists in the air spring brake chamber when the pressure and temperature signals satisfy predetermined abnormality conditions.
Reinecke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring the condition of a brake. The system detects a temperature of the brake lining and generates an alarm based on the temperature of the brake exceeding a maximum temperature (Col 14 line 15 Finally, the temperature sensors can also be used to monitor the wheel brakes, specifically the brake linings or the brake discs or the brake drums, to a specified maximum temperature. In this case, an electrical indicator and/or alarm circuit is controlled by means of the temperature signals.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier with the teachings of Reinecke which teaches detecting a temperature of the brake lining and generating an alarm based on the temperature of the brake exceeding a maximum temperature in order to use the temperature condition of each brake to regulate the braking force in each brake (See Reinecke Col 13 line 14 The invention offers the possibility of the combination of such a load-controlled braking force regulator with a regulation to equalize the braking value or temperature. For example, the electronic control system can form the command value in the partial braking range below an upper limit of the braking pressure supplied by the brake application apparatus or its activation force or its application distance to equalization, and beyond that, as a function of the load.).
Teyssier in view of Reinecke also does not teach a notification unit configured to transmit data of the corresponding vehicle to a control center or a nearby vehicle when the abnormal situation is determined and a user has not checked the warning lamp within a predetermined time.
Langbein, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring failures of vehicle systems. The system automatically transmits information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period (Page 5 line 14 ...in the event of an emergency, local optical and acoustic signals are emitted which, after a predetermined selectable time interval, if they are not acknowledged by the driver to be monitored, a trigger automatic, repetitive emergency calls in a control center.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier in view of Reinecke with the teachings of Langbein which teaches automatically transmitting information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period in order to allow the user to silence a false alarm before an alert is transmitted to the control center (See Langbein Page 2 line 39 This out transmitted optical and acoustic signals serve the vehicle leaders on the one hand as a warning signal and can, depending on the will, to avoid them a false alarm can be interrupted by the driver, on the other hand is activated if the driver does not acknowledge the warning signal Automatic emergency call to a control center triggered.).
Regarding claim 8, Teyssier in view of Reinecke and Langbein teaches the system of claim 7 as set forth above. However, Teyssier in view of Reinecke does not teach wherein the warning lamp unit provides the data of the corresponding vehicle to the control center or the nearby vehicle only when both a pressure difference of the service chambers is equal to or larger than a predetermined value and a temperature detected by the brake lining temperature sensing unit is maintained at or above a predetermined temperature for the predetermined time after the warning lamp was turned on.
Langbein, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring failures of vehicle systems. The system automatically transmits information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period (Page 5 line 14 ...in the event of an emergency, local optical and acoustic signals are emitted which, after a predetermined selectable time interval, if they are not acknowledged by the driver to be monitored, a trigger automatic, repetitive emergency calls in a control center.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier in view of Reinecke with the teachings of Langbein which teaches automatically transmitting information to a control center if acknowledgement by a user of a system failure is not received within a predetermined time period in order to allow the user to silence a false alarm before an alert is transmitted to the control center (See Langbein Page 2 line 39 This out transmitted optical and acoustic signals serve the vehicle leaders on the one hand as a warning signal and can, depending on the will, to avoid them a false alarm can be interrupted by the driver, on the other hand is activated if the driver does not acknowledge the warning signal Automatic emergency call to a control center triggered.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyssier in view of Reinecke and Ishida (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0196847).
Regarding claim 5, Teyssier in view of Reinecke teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Teyssier in view of Reinecke does not teach wherein recording is made that an emergency brake has operated when the pressure value detected in the parking chamber drops from a preset unparking pressure down to a minimum instantaneous pressure, or the pressure value detected in the service chamber is equal to or more than a preset emergency high pressure value.
Ishida, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for recording information regarding vehicle systems. The system records instances of emergency braking that occur within the vehicle (Paragraph 0032 The data collection processing is started when the reception unit 103 receives an instruction signal instructing to execute data collection from another device (for example, a driving assistance system) in the vehicle. For example, when the driving assistance system actuates emergency braking, a data collection instruction is transmitted as an electric signal from the driving assistance system to the in-vehicle device 100, and the reception unit 103 detects the electric signal and starts the data collection process.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Teyssier in view of Reinecke with the teachings of Ishida which teaches recording instances of emergency braking that occur within the vehicle in order to only record data surrounding events which are of interest and not record superfluous data (See Ishida Paragraph 0009 The present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and an object of the present invention is to provide a technique for suppressing a data capacity by appropriately selecting a data item that needs to be collected in order to analyze an accident situation or the like.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/PATRICK DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666