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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 14, 2024 and May 15, 2024 have been considered to the extent indicated in the record.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18
Analysis
Claim 18 recites that the computer-executable instructions cause the controller to receive "a third signal from a second sensor," but then recites "the first signal indicative of a force between the first locomotive and a third locomotive of the first consist." Claim 16, from which claim 18 depends through claim 17, already uses the first signal as a distance-indicative signal between the first locomotive of the first consist and the second locomotive of the second consist. It is unclear whether claim 18 intends the third signal, the first signal, or another signal to be indicative of force between the first locomotive and the third locomotive. Because the signal used for the force determination is unclear, the scope of claim 18 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Suggested Correction
Claim 18 may be clarified by amending the force-indicative phrase to refer to "the third signal" rather than "the first signal," if such wording is supported by the originally filed disclosure.
________________________________________
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1 - Kraeling et al., US 7,177,732 B2, Automatic coupling of locomotive to railcars, issued February 13, 2007. Reference 1 is used as the primary reference.
Reference 2 - Kumar et al., US 2008/0128562 A1, Method and apparatus for limiting in-train forces of a railroad train, published June 5, 2008.
Reference 3 - Miller et al., US 2020/0189631 A1, Device, system, and method for monitoring a distance between rail cars during coupling, published June 18, 2020.
Reference 4 - Shuan et al., US 2019/0178754 A1, Method and system for monitoring structural status of railcar draft gear, published June 13, 2019.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
________________________________________
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 1
1. A train consist, comprising: a first locomotive; a second locomotive with the first locomotive coupled in front of the second locomotive, the first locomotive including: a first sensor; a second sensor; and a controller configured to: receive a first signal from the first sensor; determine, based at least in part on the first signal and a force model, a compressive state between the first locomotive and the second locomotive; receive a second signal from the second sensor; determine, based at least in part on the second signal, a closing speed of the train consist to a second train consist in front of the train consist; and cause, based at least in part on the compressive state and the closing speed, the train consist to couple with the second train consist.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "A train consist, comprising: a first locomotive; a second locomotive with the first locomotive coupled in front of the second locomotive"
Reference 1 teaches locomotive 11 and a train including railcars 40 and 42 during a coupling operation. Reference 2 teaches a railway system having a lead vehicle consist, a non-lead vehicle consist, and railcars, with adjacent vehicles and railcars linked by couplers (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0011], [0012], [0016]; FIGS. 11-12). A first locomotive coupled in front of a second locomotive is taught or rendered obvious by Reference 2's lead/non-lead vehicle consist arrangement and by the ordinary configuration of locomotives in a train consist.
Limitation: "the first locomotive including: a first sensor; a second sensor"
Reference 1 teaches sensors 14 on locomotive 11, including speed sensor 24, accelerometer 26, distance detector 28, and wheel slip sensor 30. These sensors provide multiple locomotive sensor signals. Reference 2 supplies the force/slack-state sensing or determining element used for the first sensor signal, while Reference 3 supplies an express coupling-distance sensor 108, including LIDAR, radar, or sonar, used for the second sensor signal.
Limitation: "a controller configured to: receive a first signal from the first sensor"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 receiving signals from sensors 14, including speed signal 25, acceleration signal 27, distance signal 29, and wheel slip signal 31. Reference 2 teaches a first element/control element arrangement that determines slack condition, coupler force, or force-related state information (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0011], [0018]-[0021]). Together, the references teach a controller receiving a first force- or operating-parameter signal.
Limitation: "determine, based at least in part on the first signal and a force model, a compressive state between the first locomotive and the second locomotive"
Reference 2 teaches determining slack conditions for railway system segments, including stretched, intermediate, bunched, and compressed slack conditions (Ref. 2, paras. [0059]-[0068]; FIGS. 1-4 and 6). Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition from force exerted on a coupler, operating parameters of lead and non-lead vehicle consists, natural acceleration, common acceleration, track profile, track grade, tractive effort, and braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0011], [0018]-[0021], [0085], [0097]-[0108]). Those force and operating-parameter relationships correspond to a force model for determining whether the force condition between coupled locomotives or locomotive consists is in compression/bunched state rather than tension/stretched state.
Limitation: "receive a second signal from the second sensor"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 receiving distance signal 29 from distance detector 28. Reference 3 teaches distance monitoring device 106 having distance sensor 108 and local processor 206 communicating distance data to computing device 210 or remote controller 230. The distance signal from distance sensor 108 corresponds to the claimed second signal from the second sensor.
Limitation: "determine, based at least in part on the second signal, a closing speed of the train consist to a second train consist in front of the train consist"
Reference 1 teaches that controller 12 may respond to the magnitude of distance to impact Di and the rate of change of distance to impact Di so that locomotive systems are actuated accordingly. Reference 3 teaches repeatedly receiving distance data between rail cars during coupling and using that distance information to monitor and control the coupling process. Determining closing speed from change in distance over time is the ordinary and expressly taught use of the distance/relative-speed data in these coupling systems.
Limitation: "cause, based at least in part on the compressive state and the closing speed, the train consist to couple with the second train consist"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 actuating locomotive throttle 32, brakes 34, automatic coupler 36, and coupling indicator 38 to control coupling, including applying brakes or decreasing throttle so that impact occurs at a predetermined speed and signaling automatic coupler 36 to complete mechanical/electrical coupling. Reference 2 supplies the compression/slack-state input because it controls tractive effort or braking effort responsive to slack condition (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0014], [0016], [0078]-[0085]), and Reference 3 supplies the distance/closing-speed coupling input. Combining those teachings yields causing coupling based on both internal compressive state and closing speed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the automatic coupling system of Reference 1 to use Reference 2's in-train force/slack-state determination and Reference 3's coupling-distance/relative-speed monitoring so that coupling is permitted or controlled only when both internal train-force state and approach speed are acceptable. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already automates locomotive coupling using sensor signals and throttle/brake/coupler control, Reference 2 teaches why stretched/compressed slack states and coupler forces matter for avoiding train and coupler damage, and Reference 3 supplies closer coupling-distance/closing-speed sensing during the same type of rail coupling operation.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 2
2. The train consist of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive terrain data, wherein to cause the train consist to couple with the second train consist is based at least in part on the terrain data.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "receive terrain data"
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the base combination. Reference 2 teaches using track profile, track grade, and vehicle location as inputs for determining current or predicted slack condition and for controlling tractive effort or braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0018], [0085], [0090]-[0092], [0100], [0106]). Track profile and track grade correspond to the claimed terrain data.
Limitation: "wherein to cause the train consist to couple with the second train consist is based at least in part on the terrain data"
Reference 2 teaches that track profile/grade affects slack state, in-train forces, and appropriate tractive/braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0003], [0018], [0085], [0106]). Applying Reference 2's terrain/grade input to the automatic coupling controller of Reference 1 causes the coupling decision to account for grade-induced compression or stretching before allowing the train consist to couple.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to include track profile or grade data in the coupling decision because grade and terrain affect train slack, coupler forces, and whether a consist is bunched or stretched during approach. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches using track profile/grade to determine slack condition, and Reference 1's automatic coupling controller would predictably benefit from the same data when deciding how to control throttle, braking, and coupling.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 3
3. The train consist of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the compressive state is a compressed state of the train consist, wherein to cause the train consist to couple with the second train consist is based at least in part on the compressed state.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "determine that the compressive state is a compressed state of the train consist"
Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition of an entire railway system or segments of the system, including bunched/compressed and stretched slack states (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0059]-[0068], [0081]-[0083], [0097]-[0098]; FIGS. 1-4, 6, and 11-12). A bunched or compressed slack condition corresponds to the claimed compressed state of the train consist.
Limitation: "wherein to cause the train consist to couple with the second train consist is based at least in part on the compressed state"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 causing coupling through automatic coupler 36 and controlling throttle/brakes based on sensed coupling conditions. Reference 2 teaches using the determined slack condition to control tractive effort or braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0014], [0016], [0078]-[0085]). In the combined system, the controller uses the compressed state taught by Reference 2 as one condition for allowing or controlling the coupling operation taught by Reference 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the determined compressed/bunched state as a condition for coupling because the force state of a train affects coupling impact and subsequent in-train forces. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches that slack condition should guide train-control actions to reduce coupler damage, while Reference 1 already controls locomotive systems during coupling.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 4
4. The train consist of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that an average compression level of the train consist is less than a threshold value.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "determine that an average compression level of the train consist is less than a threshold value"
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and therefore includes the base compression-state determination. Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition for the entire railway system and for segments delineated by nodes, determining a range of slack conditions between stretched and compressed states, and controlling acceleration/deceleration limits responsive to slack condition (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0059]-[0068], [0081]-[0085]; FIGS. 1-6). Reference 2 further teaches comparisons against limits or thresholds such as acceleration/deceleration limits and k-value criteria used to determine slack state (Ref. 2, paras. [0084], [0093]-[0094]). Averaging or aggregating compression over train segments and comparing it with a threshold is an obvious implementation of Reference 2's segment-based slack/force control.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to compare the compression level with a threshold before coupling because threshold comparison is a conventional control technique for deciding whether measured or modeled force conditions are acceptable. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 already evaluates slack/force conditions for the entire train or train segments and applies limits to control tractive/braking effort, while Reference 1's controller uses predetermined distance/speed conditions to control coupling.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim 5
5. The train consist of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a strain gauge associated with a draft gear of the first locomotive.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "wherein the first sensor is a strain gauge associated with a draft gear of the first locomotive"
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and therefore carries the Reference 1, Reference 2, and Reference 3 base combination. Reference 4 teaches assembly 300 having coupler 301 and draft gear 302, and teaches installing a strain sensor or strain gauge to detect strain exerted on the draft gear. Reference 4 further teaches assembly 700 having coupler 701 and draft gear 702, and teaches microcontroller 800, data storage module 801, communication module 802, and data acquisition module 803 receiving data from sensors installed on the coupler and draft gear. The strain gauge or strain sensor associated with draft gear 302/702 corresponds to the claimed first sensor.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the draft-gear strain gauge of Reference 4 as the first force sensor in the coupling controller because a strain gauge provides direct force-indicative data at the coupler/draft gear location where buff and draft forces are transmitted. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 determines compressed/slack state from coupler force information, and Reference 4 supplies a concrete railcar draft-gear sensor for producing that force-indicative signal.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 6
6. The train consist of claim 1, wherein the second sensor is one of a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor or a power view sensor.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "wherein the second sensor is one of a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor or a power view sensor"
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Reference 3 teaches distance sensor 108 in distance monitoring device 106, and teaches that the distance sensor may be a LIDAR sensor, radar sensor, sonar sensor, or combination thereof. The LIDAR distance sensor 108 corresponds to the claimed second sensor.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use LIDAR as the second sensor because LIDAR provides non-contact distance measurements suitable for determining rail-vehicle approach distance and closing speed during coupling. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 3 expressly teaches LIDAR distance sensor 108 for monitoring distance during railcar coupling, and Reference 1's controller already uses distance detector 28 and distance signal 29 to control coupling.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 7
7. The train consist of claim 1, wherein controller is further configured to: determine that the closing speed is less than a threshold value, wherein to cause the train consist to couple with the second train consist is based at least in part on the closing speed being less than the threshold value.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "determine that the closing speed is less than a threshold value"
Reference 1 teaches using the rate of change of distance to impact Di and controlling braking/throttle so that impact occurs at a predetermined speed. Reference 3 teaches coupling-distance monitoring and provides feedback or control during coupling based on distance data, including predetermined threshold conditions. A controller comparing closing speed with a threshold before coupling is taught or rendered obvious by these speed/distance control teachings.
Limitation: "wherein to cause the train consist to couple with the second train consist is based at least in part on the closing speed being less than the threshold value"
Reference 1 teaches actuating automatic coupler 36 and controlling throttle 32/brakes 34 so coupling occurs at a predetermined speed. Reference 3 teaches monitoring distance/relative movement during the coupling process. In the combined system, the controller causes coupling when the closing speed is below the predetermined safe coupling threshold.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to require the closing speed to be less than a threshold before coupling because safe rail coupling depends on limiting impact speed. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already applies brakes or reduces throttle so coupling occurs at a predetermined speed, and Reference 3 supplies distance/relative-speed monitoring during the coupling operation.
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 8
8. The train consist of claim 1, wherein controller is further configured to: cause the first locomotive to decelerate.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "cause the first locomotive to decelerate"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 generating brake signal 35 to apply brakes 34 and throttle signal 33 to reduce throttle 32. Reference 1 further teaches that controller 12 may apply brakes or decrease throttle as distance to impact Di reaches a predetermined value so that impact occurs at a predetermined speed. These actions cause locomotive 11 to decelerate.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to decelerate the first locomotive during approach because reducing speed lowers coupling impact energy and prevents hard coupling. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 expressly teaches brake and throttle control during automatic coupling, and Reference 3 likewise monitors the coupling distance so movement can be controlled as the cars close.
________________________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 9
9. The train consist of claim 1, wherein to determine the compressive state between the first locomotive and the second locomotive comprises using an intra-consist force model.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "wherein to determine the compressive state between the first locomotive and the second locomotive comprises using an intra-consist force model"
Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition for a railway system and for railway-system segments delineated by nodes (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0016], [0081]-[0083]). Reference 2 uses lead and non-lead vehicle consist operating parameters, track profile, track grade, tractive effort, braking effort, natural acceleration, common acceleration, coupler force, and force direction to determine stretched, bunched, compressed, or intermediate slack states (Ref. 2, paras. [0009], [0011], [0022]-[0023], [0085], [0100]-[0108]). Those train-segment relationships constitute an intra-consist force model for determining compression between vehicles in the consist.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use an intra-consist force model because compression between locomotives depends on the dynamic forces internal to the consist, not merely on external approach speed. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches determining slack/force states of the entire train and train segments, and Reference 1's coupling controller benefits from knowing whether the approaching consist is already bunched or stretched.
________________________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 10
10. A method of coupling a first consist to a second consist, comprising: receiving, by a controller, a first signal from a sensor, the first signal indicative of a force between a first locomotive of the first consist and a second locomotive of the first consist; determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the first signal and a force model, a compression level between the first locomotive and the second locomotive; determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the compression level, that the first consist is in a compressed state; determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the first consist being in a compressed state, that the first consist is to couple to the second consist; and causing, by the controller, the first consist to couple with the second consist.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "A method of coupling a first consist to a second consist"
Reference 1 teaches a method for controlling a locomotive or a train including the locomotive during coupling to another rail vehicle. Reference 1 teaches that locomotive 11 may already be coupled with railcar 40 to form a train, and that the train is then coupled to railcar 42 at coupling end C. Reference 2 teaches lead and non-lead vehicle consists and railcars in a railway system. Together, the references teach coupling a first consist to a second consist.
Limitation: "receiving, by a controller, a first signal from a sensor, the first signal indicative of a force between a first locomotive of the first consist and a second locomotive of the first consist"
Reference 2 teaches determining force exerted on couplers, determining slack condition from force, and determining slack condition from operating parameters of lead and non-lead vehicle consists (Ref. 2, paras. [0009], [0011], [0020]-[0021], [0105]-[0108]). The force or operating-parameter signal received by the controller/first element corresponds to a first signal indicative of force between locomotives in a consist.
Limitation: "determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the first signal and a force model, a compression level between the first locomotive and the second locomotive"
Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition of railway system segments using force, force direction, natural/common acceleration, track profile, tractive effort, braking effort, and related model parameters (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0022]-[0023], [0085], [0100]-[0108]). A compression level between locomotives is taught or rendered obvious by Reference 2's determination of bunched/compressed slack state and severity over train segments.
Limitation: "determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the compression level, that the first consist is in a compressed state"
Reference 2 teaches bunched/compressed slack conditions and intermediate slack conditions between stretched and bunched states (Ref. 2, paras. [0059]-[0068], [0081]-[0083]; FIGS. 1-4 and 6). The controller determining a compressed state from compression level is the ordinary control determination taught by Reference 2's slack-condition model.
Limitation: "determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the first consist being in a compressed state, that the first consist is to couple to the second consist"
Reference 1 teaches controller-based determination and control of the coupling event using sensor inputs, distance to impact Di, and rate of change. Reference 2 teaches using slack condition to control tractive/braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0014], [0016], [0078]-[0085]). In the combined method, the controller uses compressed state as one condition for determining that coupling should proceed.
Limitation: "causing, by the controller, the first consist to couple with the second consist"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 actuating automatic coupler 36 and controlling locomotive throttle 32 and brakes 34 to perform the coupling operation. This teaches causing coupling by the controller.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's compression/slack-state model in Reference 1's controller-based coupling method because coupling should be coordinated with internal train-force conditions. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already performs automatic coupling with controller 12, sensors 14, throttle 32, brakes 34, and automatic coupler 36, while Reference 2 teaches that compressed or stretched slack states affect coupler forces and should guide tractive/braking control.
________________________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 11
11. The method of coupling a first consist to a second consist of claim 10, further comprising: receiving terrain data, wherein causing the first consist to couple with the second consist is based at least in part on the terrain data.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "receiving terrain data"
Reference 2 teaches receiving or using track profile, actual track grade, current location, and forward track-location data to determine slack condition (Ref. 2, paras. [0018], [0085], [0090]-[0092], [0100], [0106]).
Limitation: "wherein causing the first consist to couple with the second consist is based at least in part on the terrain data"
Reference 2 teaches that track profile and grade affect the determined slack condition and responsive tractive/braking control (Ref. 2, paras. [0003], [0018], [0085], [0106]). In the combined method, that terrain data is used as part of the coupling decision because grade-induced slack affects whether the consist is compressed and ready for controlled coupling.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to base the coupling operation partly on terrain data because track grade and profile influence whether a consist is bunched or stretched during approach. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 uses terrain/profile data to determine train slack and force, and Reference 1's automatic coupling method uses controller decisions to manage coupling speed and locomotive response.
________________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 12
12. The method of coupling a first consist to a second consist of claim 10, further comprising: receiving, by the controller, a second signal from a second sensor; and determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the second signal, a closing speed of the first train consist to the second train consist, wherein causing the first consist to couple with the second consist is based at least in part on the closing speed.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "receiving, by the controller, a second signal from a second sensor"
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and adds a closing-speed sensor signal. Reference 3 teaches distance sensor 108 of distance monitoring device 106 communicating distance data to local processor 206, computing device 210, and remote controller 230. This distance data corresponds to the claimed second signal.
Limitation: "determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the second signal, a closing speed of the first train consist to the second train consist"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 using rate of change of distance to impact Di. Reference 3 teaches repeatedly receiving distance data between rail cars during coupling. Determining closing speed from successive distance measurements is taught or rendered obvious by those distance/rate-of-change teachings.
Limitation: "wherein causing the first consist to couple with the second consist is based at least in part on the closing speed"
Reference 1 teaches controlling throttle/brakes and automatic coupler 36 so that coupling occurs at a predetermined speed. Reference 3 teaches coupling-distance monitoring used to control railcar movement and coupling actions. The combined method therefore causes coupling based in part on closing speed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add Reference 3's distance/closing-speed sensor data to the coupling method because closing speed is a direct safety variable for rail coupling impact. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already controls coupling based on distance-to-impact and rate of change, while Reference 3 provides a modern distance-monitoring device for the same coupling operation.
________________________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 13
13. The method of coupling a first consist to a second consist of claim 10, further comprising: determining, by the controller, that the second consist is in the compressed state, wherein causing the first consist to couple with the second consist is based at least in part on the second consist being in the compressed state.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "determining, by the controller, that the second consist is in the compressed state"
Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition for the entire railway system and for individual railway system segments delineated by nodes, including lead and non-lead vehicle consists and railcars (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0016], [0081]-[0083], [0097]-[0098]; FIGS. 6 and 11-12). When the second consist is equipped with the same force/slack-state sensing and control arrangement, Reference 2 teaches determining whether that second consist or its relevant segment is in a compressed/bunched state.
Limitation: "wherein causing the first consist to couple with the second consist is based at least in part on the second consist being in the compressed state"
Reference 1 teaches controller-based coupling, and Reference 2 teaches using slack condition to guide train-control actions (Ref. 2, paras. [0005]-[0006], [0014], [0016], [0078]-[0085]). Applying the slack-state determination to both the approaching consist and the consist being approached makes the coupling decision depend on the second consist's compressed state as recited.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to determine the compression state of the second consist before coupling because the target consist's slack condition affects impact response and post-coupling in-train forces. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches segment-level slack determination across a railway system, and Reference 1's coupling control can use that state information to avoid coupling into an undesirable force condition.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 14
14. The method of coupling a first consist to a second consist of claim 10, further comprising: causing, by the controller and based at least in part on the compression level, the second locomotive to accelerate.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "causing, by the controller and based at least in part on the compression level, the second locomotive to accelerate"
Reference 2 teaches controlling application of tractive effort and braking effort for lead and non-lead vehicle consists responsive to slack condition (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0014], [0016], [0078]-[0085]). Applying tractive effort to a non-lead or second locomotive to manage compression level corresponds to causing the second locomotive to accelerate based on compression level.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to command acceleration of the second locomotive based on compression level because changing tractive effort is a direct way to manage slack and coupler force between locomotives. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches controlling tractive effort/braking effort responsive to slack condition, and Reference 1 supplies a controller-based coupling operation in which locomotive movement is actively controlled.
________________________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 15
15. The method of coupling a first consist to a second consist of claim 10, further comprising: causing, by the controller and based at least in part on the compression level, the first locomotive to decelerate.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "causing, by the controller and based at least in part on the compression level, the first locomotive to decelerate"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 causing deceleration by reducing throttle 32 and applying brakes 34 during coupling. Reference 2 teaches controlling braking effort responsive to slack/compression condition (Ref. 2, paras. [0014], [0078]-[0085]). In the combined method, the first locomotive is decelerated based on compression level so the coupling approach occurs under acceptable force conditions.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to decelerate the first locomotive based on compression level because braking or reducing tractive effort relieves unsafe slack/force conditions and controls coupling impact. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already applies brake/throttle control during coupling, and Reference 2 teaches using slack/compression state to select tractive or braking action.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim 16
16. A train control system, comprising: a controller including one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to: receive a first signal from a first sensor, the first signal indicative of a distance between a first locomotive of a first consist and a second locomotive of a second consist; determine, based at least in part on the first signal, a closing speed of the first locomotive to the second locomotive; determine that the closing speed is greater than a threshold value; determine, based at least in part on the closing speed being greater than the threshold value, that the first locomotive is not to couple with the second locomotive; and provide an indication that the first locomotive is not to couple with the second locomotive.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "A train control system, comprising: a controller including one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 in the form of a microcomputer, microcontroller, or programmable control device, and storage media 18 such as nonvolatile memory storing control program instructions. Reference 3 teaches local processor 206, computing device 210, remote controller 230, processor 232, and data storage medium 234. These teachings meet the controller/processor/computer-readable media limitations.
Limitation: "receive a first signal from a first sensor, the first signal indicative of a distance between a first locomotive of a first consist and a second locomotive of a second consist"
Reference 1 teaches distance detector 28 detecting distance between approaching vehicles and generating distance signal 29. Reference 3 teaches distance sensor 108 detecting the distance between a first rail car and a second rail car during coupling and communicating distance data to the processor/controller. A locomotive is a rail vehicle, so applying the same distance-sensing arrangement between locomotives of two consists teaches or renders obvious this limitation.
Limitation: "determine, based at least in part on the first signal, a closing speed of the first locomotive to the second locomotive"
Reference 1 teaches using rate of change of distance to impact Di to actuate locomotive systems. Reference 3 teaches repeatedly receiving distance data during coupling. The rate of change of distance between the two vehicles is the closing speed.
Limitation: "determine that the closing speed is greater than a threshold value"
Reference 1 teaches controlling coupling so that impact occurs at a predetermined speed. Reference 3 teaches predetermined coupling/distance thresholds and providing feedback or control during the coupling process. Comparing measured closing speed with a threshold is an obvious application of these predetermined-speed and relative-distance teachings.
Limitation: "determine ... that the first locomotive is not to couple with the second locomotive"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 controlling throttle 32, brakes 34, and automatic coupler 36 during coupling. Reference 3 teaches controlling railcar movement based on distance data and temporarily suspending or stopping movement under unsafe or threshold conditions. In the combined system, if closing speed is greater than the threshold, the controller determines not to complete the coupling.
Limitation: "provide an indication that the first locomotive is not to couple with the second locomotive"
Reference 1 teaches coupling indicator 38 and signal 39, which may provide audible or visual annunciation. Reference 3 teaches speaker 310, indicator light 312, and display 314 providing feedback of distance/status/coupling-process information. These components teach providing an indication when coupling should not proceed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 1's automatic locomotive coupling controller with Reference 3's distance-monitoring and feedback system so that the controller can refuse coupling and indicate that refusal when approach speed is excessive. The combination makes technical sense because both references solve the same coupling-control problem, and preventing or warning against coupling above a threshold speed predictably avoids hard impacts and equipment damage.
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim 17
17. The train control system of claim 16, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the controller to: cause the first locomotive to decelerate; receive a second signal from the first sensor; determine, based at least in part on the second signal, a second closing speed of the first locomotive to the second locomotive; determine that the second closing speed is less than the threshold value; determine, based at least in part on the second closing speed being less than the threshold value, that the first locomotive is to couple with the second locomotive; and cause the first locomotive to couple with the second locomotive.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "cause the first locomotive to decelerate"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 generating throttle signal 33 to reduce throttle 32 and brake signal 35 to apply brakes 34. Reference 3 teaches controlling movement of the rail cars during coupling based on distance data. These teachings cause deceleration during approach.
Limitation: "receive a second signal from the first sensor"
Reference 1 teaches controller 12 receiving distance signal 29 from distance detector 28 during the approach. Reference 3 teaches repeatedly receiving distance data from distance sensor 108. A later distance signal from the same sensor corresponds to the second signal.
Limitation: "determine ... a second closing speed ... determine that the second closing speed is less than the threshold value"
After deceleration, Reference 1's controller continues to use distance-to-impact Di and rate of change, and Reference 3 continues to monitor distance data during coupling. The controller therefore determines a second closing speed and compares that second speed to the same predetermined safe threshold.
Limitation: "determine ... that the first locomotive is to couple with the second locomotive; and cause the first locomotive to couple with the second locomotive"
Reference 1 teaches actuating automatic coupler 36 and controlling throttle/brake systems so that coupling occurs at a predetermined speed. Once the second closing speed is below the threshold, the combined controller determines that coupling is allowed and causes the automatic coupler operation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to decelerate and then reassess closing speed before coupling because the initial approach may be too fast, but coupling can proceed after speed is brought within a safe threshold. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already teaches braking/throttle control to achieve a predetermined coupling speed, and Reference 3 provides repeated distance/feedback data during the coupling process.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 2 and Reference 4.
Claim 18
18. The train control system of claim 17, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the controller to: receive a third signal from a second sensor, the first signal indicative of a force between the first locomotive and a third locomotive of the first consist, wherein to cause the first locomotive to couple with the second locomotive is based at least in part on the third signal.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "receive a third signal from a second sensor"
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and therefore includes the Reference 1 and Reference 3 distance/closing-speed control system. Reference 4 teaches a strain sensor or strain gauge installed on or associated with coupler/draft gear structures, including draft gear 302/702 and microcontroller 800 receiving sensor data. A strain-gauge signal from Reference 4 corresponds to the claimed third signal from a second sensor.
Limitation: "the first signal indicative of a force between the first locomotive and a third locomotive of the first consist"
Reference 2 teaches determining force exerted on couplers and determining slack condition or changes in slack condition responsive to coupler force, including conditions of railway-system segments (Ref. 2, paras. [0011], [0020]-[0021], [0105]-[0108]). Reference 4 supplies a concrete force/strain sensor at the coupler/draft gear. In the combined system, the force-indicative signal represents force between locomotives in the same consist.
Limitation: "wherein to cause the first locomotive to couple with the second locomotive is based at least in part on the third signal"
Reference 2 teaches using slack condition and coupler-force information to control tractive effort or braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0014], [0016], [0078]-[0085], [0105]-[0108]), and Reference 1 teaches causing coupling by controller 12. In the combined system, the force/strain signal is used with the distance/closing-speed logic before causing coupling.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add Reference 2's coupler-force/slack-state logic and Reference 4's draft-gear strain sensor to the Reference 1/Reference 3 coupling controller so that the controller considers internal force between locomotives before completing coupling. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches that coupler force/slack state affects safe train handling, Reference 4 provides a known rail draft-gear force sensor, and Reference 1/Reference 3 already control coupling based on sensor feedback.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 2.
Claim 19
19. The train control system of claim 17, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the controller to: receive terrain data, wherein to cause the first locomotive to couple with the second locomotive is based at least in part on the terrain data.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "receive terrain data"
Reference 2 teaches using track profile, track grade, current location, and forward track-location information to determine slack condition and control tractive/braking effort (Ref. 2, paras. [0018], [0085], [0090]-[0092], [0100], [0106]).
Limitation: "wherein to cause the first locomotive to couple with the second locomotive is based at least in part on the terrain data"
Reference 2 teaches that track profile/grade affects slack condition and train-control actions (Ref. 2, paras. [0003], [0018], [0085], [0106]). In the combined train control system, the terrain data is used with the closing-speed control of References 1 and 3 to determine whether and how to cause coupling.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use terrain data in the coupling-control instructions because grade and track profile change the expected slack and force response during approach. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 supplies terrain/profile-based slack determination, while References 1 and 3 supply the automatic coupling controller and distance/closing-speed monitoring.
________________________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 2.
Claim 20
20. The train control system of claim 16, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the controller to: determine that a compression level between the first locomotive and a third locomotive of the first consist is greater than a second threshold value, wherein to determine that the first locomotive is not to couple with the second locomotive is based at least in part on the compression level.
Analysis
Limitation-by-limitation analysis
Limitation: "determine that a compression level between the first locomotive and a third locomotive of the first consist is greater than a second threshold value"
Reference 2 teaches determining slack condition for the entire train or segments of the train, determining coupler forces, determining bunched/compressed states, and applying limits/thresholds responsive to slack condition (Ref. 2, paras. [0006], [0011], [0061]-[0068], [0081]-[0085], [0093]-[0094], [0105]-[0108]; FIGS. 1-6). Determining that compression between locomotives exceeds a second threshold is an obvious implementation of Reference 2's force/slack-state and threshold/limit control.
Limitation: "wherein to determine that the first locomotive is not to couple with the second locomotive is based at least in part on the compression level"
Reference 1 teaches the controller deciding and commanding coupling functions, while Reference 3 teaches stopping, suspending, or controlling movement based on coupling-condition thresholds and providing feedback. Reference 2 teaches that excessive compression/slack conditions can cause coupler damage and should control train actions (Ref. 2, paras. [0003], [0005], [0075]-[0085]). In the combined system, excessive compression level provides an additional reason to determine that coupling should not proceed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to prevent coupling when compression between locomotives exceeds a threshold because excessive buff/compression force can create unsafe coupling impact and post-coupling train-force conditions. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 2 teaches force/slack-state threshold control to limit in-train forces, and References 1 and 3 already make coupling/no-coupling decisions based on sensed approach conditions.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 112
Claim 18.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-20.
Objected-to Claims
None.
Allowed Claims
None.
________________________________________
Conclusion
US 5,950,967 A, US 10,551,257 B2, and EP 2 497 694 A2 were reviewed but not relied upon. References 2 and 4 more directly provide the in-train slack/compressed-state and draft-gear strain-gauge teachings used in the rejection, with Reference 2 serving as the U.S. counterpart for the pertinent foreign-reference teachings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. 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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights