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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the interface” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is referencing the “interface adapter” and/or the “fluid interface” and/or the “fluid interface duplicate” and/or the “further interface” (see e.g. claim 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skweres et al. (US 10,214,195) in view of Gaughan (US 5,714,684).
Regarding independent claim 1, Skweres discloses an interface adapter (51) (see FIGS. 3, 4; Abstract) for a control valve (50) (see FIG 3) of a rail car pneumatic brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4), the control valve having at least two housing compartments (11, 12) being in fluid communication with each other via a fluid interface (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) (see col. 10, lines 18-28; FIGS. 3, 4), the interface adapter comprising: a fluid interface duplicate (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) for enabling fluid communication between the housing compartments through the interface adapter (see col. 10, lines 18-28; FIGS. 3, 4), and a further interface (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) being in fluid communication with the fluid interface duplicate (see col. 10, lines 12-23; FIGS. 3-5) for enabling access to the fluid communication between the housing compartments from outside the housing (see col. 10, lines 5-12), a substantially even plate structure (see FIG. 5, plate comprising interfaces (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) forms an even plate structure) having a fluid interface duplicate plate section (see FIG. 4, section comprising interfaces (63, 64, 65, 66, 67)); and a further interface plate section (52).
Skweres further discloses that the further interface plate section can be oriented in different directions (see col. 11, lines 25-31), but does not disclose that wherein the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section extended in the same plane.
Gaughan teaches an interface adapter (see FIG. 8) comprising a fluid interface duplicate plate section (see FIG. 8, portion connected to service portion (18) and/or emergency portion (20)) and a further interface plate section (see FIG. 8, portion connected to access housing (56)), wherein the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section extended in the same plane (see FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to configure the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section to extend in the same plane to simplify the manufacturing of the interface adapter (e.g. the mounting surfaces for the duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section can be made from a single surface facing in the same orientation).
Regarding claim 2, Skweres discloses that the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section (52) are manufactured in one piece (see FIG. 4; col. 11, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 3, Skweres discloses that the interface adapter is configured to branch off the fluid communication in a direction at least section wisely parallel to the fluid interface (see FIGS. 3, 4; passages (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) extend parallel to surface comprising passages (63, 64, 65, 66, 67)).
Regarding claim 4, Skweres discloses that the fluid interface duplicate comprises at least one through hole (63, 64, 65, 66, 67), for enabling distinct fluid flows through the interface adapter (see col. 10, lines 18-28; FIGS. 3, 4) and the further interface comprises a number of openings (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) adapted to the number of through holes (see FIG. 4; col. 4, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 5, Skweres discloses that each opening (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) is in fluid communication with one through hole (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) (see FIGS. 4, 5; col. 4, lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 6, Skweres discloses that the fluid communication between the opening and the through hole is a fluid channel (55, 56, 57, 58, 59) extending through the plate structure (see FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Skweres discloses a control valve for a rail car pneumatic brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 3-5), the control valve comprising: a housing (11, 12) with at least two housing compartments (11, 12) being in fluid communication with each other via a fluid interface (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) (see col. 10, lines 18-28; FIGS. 3, 4); and an interface adapter (51) configured to transfer the fluid interface to an accessible space (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) outside the housing for enabling a further access to the fluid communication (see col. 10, lines 5-12), the interface adapter comprising: a fluid interface duplicate (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) for enabling fluid communication between the housing compartments through the interface adapter (see col. 10, lines 18-28; FIGS. 3, 4), and a further interface (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) being in fluid communication with the fluid interface duplicate (see col. 10, lines 12-23; FIGS. 3-5) for enabling access to the fluid communication between the housing compartments from outside the housing (see col. 10, lines 5-12), a substantially even plate structure (see FIG. 5, plate comprising interfaces (63, 64, 65, 66, 67) forms an even plate structure) having a fluid interface duplicate plate section (see FIG. 4, section comprising interfaces (63, 64, 65, 66, 67)); and a further interface plate section (52).
Skweres further discloses that the further interface plate section can be oriented in different directions (see col. 11, lines 25-31), but does not disclose that wherein the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section extended in the same plane.
Gaughan teaches an interface adapter (see FIG. 8) comprising a fluid interface duplicate plate section (see FIG. 8, portion connected to service portion (18) and/or emergency portion (20)) and a further interface plate section (see FIG. 8, portion connected to access housing (56)), wherein the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section extended in the same plane (see FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to configure the fluid interface duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section to extend in the same plane to simplify the manufacturing of the interface adapter (e.g. the mounting surfaces for the duplicate plate section and the further interface plate section can be made from a single surface facing in the same orientation).
Regarding claim 9, Skweres discloses that the interface adapter is configured to branch off the fluid communication in a direction at least section wisely parallel to the fluid interface (see FIGS. 3, 4; passages (53, 54, 55, 56, 57) extend parallel to surface comprising passages (63, 64, 65, 66, 67)).
Regarding claim 10, Skweres discloses that the further interface is an electronics interface configured to be connected to an electronic module (150) (see col. 14, line 56 to col. 15, line 19; FIG. 11) or a dummy for occupying the electronics interface (see col. 14, lines 50-55), wherein particularly, the electronic module is mounted to the electronics interface (see col. 11, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 11, Skweres discloses that the electronic module comprises a measuring and/or monitoring device (col. 14, line 62 to col. 15, line 3), configured to determine and/or monitor at least one parameter of the fluid flow (col. 14, line 62 to col. 15, line 3).
Regarding claim 12, Skweres discloses that the measuring and/or monitoring device comprises a predetermined sensor arrangement of at least one pressure sensor (col. 14, line 62 to col. 15, line 3), and the electronics interface design is adapted to the predetermined sensor arrangement (see col. 11, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 13, Skweres discloses that the at least one pressure sensor of the predetermined sensor arrangement are each allocated to one electronics interface opening (see col. 14, line 62 to col. 15, line 3).
Regarding claim 14, Skweres discloses that each of the housing compartments comprises or is connected to a distributor valve or a relay valve arrangement (see col. 6, lines 28-39).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skweres et al. (US 10,214,195) in view of Gaughan (US 5,714,684), as applied to claim 14, above, and further in view of Komoriya et al. (US 2013/0134769).
Regarding claim 15, Skweres discloses wherein the further interface comprises an opening connection for connecting to a fluid pipe enabling fluid communication of the further interface with a valve arrangement (12) (see FIGS. 1, 3).
Skweres does not disclose that the valve arrangement is a relay valve arrangement with access to the control pressure.
Schnittger teaches a control valve for a rail car pneumatic brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6), comprising a housing compartment (30) comprising a relay valve arrangement (33, 34) and an interface adapter (40) comprising an opening connection for connecting to a fluid pipe enabling fluid communication with the relay valve arrangement with access to the control pressure (see e.g. FIG. 4, sensors (63, 64) detect control pressure of relay valves).
It would have been obvious to combine the relay valve and opening connection for the relay valve of Schnittger with the control valve of Skweres to provide a relay valve that accelerates the application and/or release of the brakes upon application of a control signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
March 31, 2026