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 .
35 USC 112(B) REJECTION
Claims 15-30 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, “specifically … rail” (last 3 lines) is indefinite. One of ordinary skill does not recognize if such is a mere example, or is somehow a limitation in this claim. What is Applicant’s position?
As to claims 15,26, what is a “physical model” that is merely used (“using”, line 3)? Is it a physical model in that is somehow in a processor? Is it a model that that can be within an individual’s (person’s) mind, that will somehow relate to external physical matter? Is it something that is written on a piece of paper (as is the written specification) that is somehow related to physical matter? What is one of ordinary skill to make of this phrase?
As to claim 16, does “is used” an actual step, or is it merely an intended use of the parameter of claim 15? Claim 16 is a mere “wherein” clause, and as such appears to describe the meaning of claim 15’s parameter within the “using” (line 3, claim 15) step. Claim 16 does not expressly add an additional step. What is Applicant’s position. What is one of ordinary skill to make of this?
As to claim 17, it’s not clear if the verb “taking” (line 2) is an additional step, or if it merely narrows claim 15’s “using a physical model” (line 3, claim 15) step.
As to claim 17, the last 2 lines are confusing, as the “calculating” seems to merely further narrow claim 15’s “using a physical model” step which determines an influence on adhesion (and quantity of liquid is such). In effect, the same subject matter (last 2 lines, claim 17) is twice claimed.
As t claim 18, does “based on the physical model” mean that claim 15’s “using” (line 3) step comprise “ calculating … determined” (lines 2-last), or in the alternative that “”calculating” (line 2), “taking” (line 6) and “determining” (line 8) are all in addition to the “using” (line 3, claim 15) of claim 15? If the latter, the same limitations are again twice claimed. How is one of ordinary skill to recognize the metes and bounds of this claim?
As to claim 18, curves are not calculated. A calculation provides values, not curves. Is the term “calculating” an improper translation, or maybe have a different meaning known to one of ordinary skill? Figure 1 presents/displays a real curve. Is the method limited to actually providing an actual real curve? One of ordinary skill cannot be confident on such. What is to be made of such?
As to claim 22, the same subject matter is claimed twice. Consider that the claim call for “using … in determining … parameter” (lines 3-4, claim 15) and “determining … as the … parameter” (lines 1-3, claim 22). The same “parameter” (i.e. “parameter” (line 4, claim 15) and “parameter” (line 3, claim 22) is twice claimed. Such is inherently confusing.
As to claim 23, the same subject matter is claimed twice. Consider that the claim call for “using … in determining … parameter” (lines 3-4, claim 15) and “determining … as the … parameter” (lines 1-2, claim 23). The same “parameter” (i.e. “parameter” (line 4, claim 15) and “parameter” (line 2, claim 23) is twice claimed. Such is inherently confusing.
As to claim 26, “facility” is a bit indefinite. Paragraphs 31 and 32 describe two different facilities, but one (Figure 31) is more a system, while the other (Figure 4) is an apparatus. The same term “facility” cannot have 2 different (external or internal) meanings. What does the term “facility” mean such that it can be either?
As to clam 26, “leading wheel as on adhesion” (last 2 lines) is problematic. Should “as” have read - - has - - . What does this claim convey?
As to claim 28, that term “curve” (line 4) is problematic. Is there a curve in this facility, or is there a “curve” literally employed in the determination (“determine”, line 2)?
As to claim 29, claim 29 calls for a rail vehicle that includes a facility for determining; but claim 26 calls for “A facility” and “rail vehicle” that are separate from one another. Claim 29 is mixing limitations of 2 different embodiments, which is problematic.
As to claim 30, that term “curve” (line 4) is problematic. Is there a curve in this facility, or is there a “curve” literally employed in the determination (“determining”, line 2)?
35 USC 112(D) REJECTION
Claims 29,30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 29 seems to be removing the separate nature of “A facility” (line 1, claim 26) and the “a rail vehicle” (claim 26). The “facility” (line 1, claim 26) does NOT control itself. The “facility” (line 2, claim 26) controls something other than itself, such being the rail vehicle. Claim 29 is eliminating the separate nature of the “facility” (line 1, claim 26) and the “ rail vehicle” (line 2, claim 26). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
35 USC 112(A1) REJECTION
Claim(s) 15,16,17,18,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tione WO 2017/175108 (1449).
As to claims 15,22,24, Tione teaches (Figures 6A,6B; pages 4-6) a method for determining at least one braking-behavior-relevant parameter (friction of following wheel per Figure 6B) for controlling a braking system of a rail vehicle, the method comprising: using a physical model (Figures 4,6A,6B; pp 4-6) in determining the at least one braking-behavior- relevant parameter (friction of following wheels per Figure 6B), the physical model taking into account an influence of a wheel (first cleaning axle) leading a wheel (subsequent axle that experiences a cleaned rail) to be braked, specifically with respect to an influence effect (due to the first wheel cleaning a path for the subsequent wheel) which the leading wheel has on an adhesion between a trailing wheel to be braked and a rail (lines 1-2, page 6, which relates to Figure 6B’s increased adhesive values of the top 3 following axles).
As to claims 16,27, the breaks employ control loops per Figure 2.
As to claims 17,28,30, lubricants are described as being cleaned.
As to claim 18, the above identified figures show the curves and values.
As to claim 23, slip value it determined, and varies in time. (ABSTRACT) Page 6 teaches controlling such adhesion.
As to claims 26,29, Tione’s facility includes the train.
35 USC 103 REJECTION
Claim(s) 25,26,27,28,29,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tione WO 2017/175108 (1449) in view of Yun et al KR 20050094712.
Comments the exist above regarding claims 15,15, similarly apply here.
Tione does not refer to an outside facility.
Yun teaches control of braking from an wireless communication facility. The ECU employs the method of claim 15.
As to claims 25,26,29 comment above regarding claim 15 similarly applies here. Also, it would have been obvious to employ a facility that control braking as Yun teaches that such effective.
As to claim 27, see comments above relating to claim 16.
As to claim 28,30, see comments above relating to claim 17.
PRIOR ART OF RECORD
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huh 20220001748 teaches a method for determining at least one braking-behavior-relevant parameter for controlling a braking system of a
Ganzel CN 112896132 teaches (per quoted paragraph below this sentence) a method for determining at least one braking-behavior-relevant parameter for controlling a braking system of a
“In order to maintain the vehicle stability while obtaining the maximum braking force, it is desirable to obtain the optimal sliding level at the wheel of the front axle and the rear axle. During deceleration of the vehicle, different braking forces are required at the front and rear axle positions to achieve a desired slip level. Therefore, the brake pressure should be distributed according to the proportion between the front brake and the rear brake, so as to obtain the maximum brake force at each vehicle bridge. ABS system with such an ability (called dynamic proportioning (DRP) system) using ABS valve respectively control the brake pressure on the front wheel and the rear wheel, so as to dynamically realize the optimal braking performance of the front axle and rear axle under the current condition.”
Stuetzle et al CA 2606261 teach (Figure 8) a control system to provide for braking on each axle of a rail vehicle; and refers to leading wheels changing behavior as a result of frictional forces, heat and cleaning the rails for trailing axles, which is a conditioning effect that results in the level of an adhesion curve rising during braking in Figure 4. However, the adhesion value of the trailing wheel does not take into account that of the leading wheel.
Frea et al ’795 (listed 1449) teach (Figure 7; Para 34-36) a method for determining at least one braking-behavior-relevant parameter (adhesion) rail vehicle, the method comprising: using a physical model in determining the at least one braking-behavior- relevant parameter (viscosity of axle 2), the physical model taking into account an influence of a wheel leading a wheel to be brake (as the leading wheel 1 cleans the rail for wheel 2), specifically with respect to an influence effect which the leading wheel has on an adhesion between a trailing wheel to be braked and a rail. Figure 7 is as much a physical model as it provides a time element for how a wheel to be braked takes an influence (of a leading wheel) into account to provide a truer adhesion value between wheel and rail.
Tione 10780904 (listed 1449) mentions that a leading wheel can over heat with consequent cleaning effect of the point of contact, improving the instantaneous adhesive value for the next wheel.
CONCLUSION
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 Mon to Fri from 8am to 5pm.
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
1