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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 are allowed.
As to claim 26, the prior art did not teach the combination of “calculate the quantity of liquid impacting the wheel to be braked considering a liquid reduction caused by the leading wheel” (italics added, last 2 lines, claim 26), in combination with remaining claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15,16,18-25,28-30 are 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.
As to claim 15, this is a method claim that calls for “using” (line 4), “taking” (lines 9-11) and “calculating” (lines 12-13), a total of 3 steps. The “using a model step” (line 4) determines the “the at least one braking-behavior-relevant parameter” (highlighting added, lines 4-5) which is expressly the same “parameter” (line 2) in the preamble. Then, the claim includes 2 additional steps (i.e. “taking” (lines 9-11) and “calculating” (lines 12-13), suggestive that the claim has a total of 3 steps. However, the specification seems to indicate that the taking and calculating steps are part of the single step of “using a physical model” (lines 4-8). As such, the claim is confusing because it appears that the “taking” and “calculating” steps are being twice claimed - - a first time as they are originally disclosed as being part of the step of “using a physical model in determining … parameter” (lines 4-5), and an additional/second time by the “taking” and “calculating” steps being added in the last 5 lines of the same claim. In effect, the claim is problematic, the same steps are twice claimed. Please consider that the step of “using a physical model …parameter” (lines 4-5) relates to Figure 2 which represents what “physical model” (Para 30, Pub) is, and Understand that “using a physical model” (line 4) means using such, and that the last 5 lines certainly appear to be using the physical model of Figure 2. As to claim 18, the “determining” (lines 3-6), “taking” (lines 7-8) and “determining” (lines 9-last) are confusing because those steps too are not separate from claim 15’s step of “using a physical model” (line 4, claim 15). Note that the claim states that the steps of lines 3-last are “based on the physical model” (line 3), and the step of “using” (line 4, claim 15) was previously claimed.
As to claim 18, the step of “taking into account …amount of liquid on the rail during braking” (lines 7-8) overlaps “taking into account…liquid impacting on the wheel to be braked” (lines 9-11, claim 15). The same step is being claimed twice to some extent.
As to claim 22, “determining an adhesion” (line 2) is claiming the same step as “using a physical model in determining …parameter” (lines 4-5, claim 15). The parameter is adhesion.
As to claim 23, “determining as a braking-behavior-relevant parameter” (line 2) is claiming the same step as “using a physical model in determining …parameter” (lines 4-5, claim 15). The parameter is adhesion.
As to claim 28, the limitation “curve” (line 4) is problematic. The claim is directed to an apparatus/system, but is a “curve” literally employed in the determination (“determine”, line 2)? Understand, a curve is seen in the specification; is such seen in the claim? Consider that this is an apparatus claim.
As to claim 29, consider changing “a facility” (line 1) to - -the facility - - . Presently, claim 29 seems include 2 facilities, the “a facility” (line 1) being one, and the phrase “according to claim 26” (line 2) suggesting ALL of claim 26 which includes “A facility” (line 1, claim 26) which is a second. The difficulty is that claim 29 includes both “A facility” (line 1, claim 26) and “a facility” (line 1, claim 29) which suggests 2.
As to claim 30, the limitation “curve” (line 4) is problematic. The claim is directed to an apparatus/system, but is a “curve” literally employed in the “determining” (line 2)? Understand, a curve is seen in the specification; is such seen in the claim? Consider that this is an apparatus claim.
AS TO REMARKS
As to the last full paragraph of p. 11, the “curve” is well enough in the specification/drawings, but claim 28 is an apparatus claim. No structure suggests displaying a curve, no structure suggests that the determined “adhesion” (line 2) is limited to continuous adhesion measuring, let alone continuous adhesion measuring that is capable of providing a curve. (Is that what claim 28 is limited to mean?)
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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights