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 Status
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Specification
The title of the invention appears to contain a typo. The following title is suggested: Electric Brake Control System.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: The specification frequently uses the term, “includes” and it is not clear exactly how this term is to be interpreted. Paragraph 79 of the instant specification recites, “In the appended claims, the terms "including" and "in which" are used as the plain-English equivalents of the respective terms "comprising" and "wherein,” however, this description doesn’t clarify how the term is to be interpreted. For example, paragraph 25 recites, "may be or may include" which suggests that if a brake unit is a control unit it would be a control unit and (each brake unit within the group of brake units) would not have a control unit as a sub-component. Compare that with, paragraph 46 which recites, “units can include an electronic module including electro-pneumatic (EP) valves and transducers which seems to suggest that each electronic module has an EP valve. Further, paragraphs 22-23 indicate that the electronic modules may comprise one of more pneumatic valves, however, that is separate from the pneumatic module which can have a valve but also sometimes the actual brake modules themselves can be a valve (isolation valve, distributor valve, etc.). A review of the drawings offers no clarity as it would be possible for the brake unit which is alternatively defined as a control unit could also have a control unit within the structure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed configurations of the brake units controlling pressure in the brake pipes/lines/ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For example, Claim 3 recites, “wherein the brake units include a control unit configured to control a pressure in a brake pipe within a lead vehicle of the vehicles and a charging brake unit configured to charge the pressure in the brake pipe in several of the vehicles,” however, there is no apparent pneumatic or otherwise connection of the control unit to the brake pipes in a lead vehicle and there is no feature showing the charging brake unit charging the pressure in the brake pipe of several of the vehicles. Similar issues exist with other claims.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the brake cylinder equalization pipe must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the brake cylinder equalization pipe as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show any structural detail as to how the isolation valve can isolate the brake unit from the brake pipe, see ¶21 of the instant Specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “124” has been used to designate both To/From Direct Brake Line and To/From Brake Pipe.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: From Main Reservoir (Supply Pressure) "MR".
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite both a brake cylinder equalization pipe and a brake pipes, however, per paragraph 17 of the instant specification, “The brake lines or pipes also can include or represent brake cylinder equalizing pipes (BCEQ) that fluidically couple the propulsion-generating vehicles, and that may independently control each of the brakes of these vehicles.” Coupled with the unclear nature of the word, “including,” there does not appear to be support in the written description for a system with both a brake pipe and a brake cylinder equalizing pipe. For example, Figure 1 shows a brake line and a brake pipe both with the numeral 24, but if they are brake cylinder equalization pipes then it is not shown how the brake pipes would be incorporated or vice versa.
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 12-13 frequently use the term, “include” and it is not clear exactly how this term is to be interpreted. Paragraph 79 of the instant specification recites, “In the appended claims, the terms "including" and "in which" are used as the plain-English equivalents of the respective terms "comprising" and "wherein,” however, this description doesn’t clarify how the term is to be interpreted. For example, paragraph 25 recites, "may be or may include" which suggests that if a brake unit is a control unit it would be a control unit and (each brake unit within the group of brake units) would not have a control unit as a sub-component. Compare that with, paragraph 46 which recites, “units can include an electronic module including electro-pneumatic (EP) valves and transducers which seems to suggest that each electronic module has an EP valve. Further, paragraphs 22-23 indicate that the electronic modules may comprise one of more pneumatic valves, however, that is separate from the pneumatic module which can have a valve but also sometimes the actual brake modules themselves can be a valve (isolation valve, distributor valve, etc.). A review of the specification and drawings offers no clarity as it would be possible for the brake unit which is alternatively defined as a control unit could also have a control unit within the structure.
Specifically, regarding claims 3-9, and 12-13 . A great degree of uncertainty and confusion exists regarding the proper interpretation of the claim in light of the multiplicity and scope of rejections set forth under 35 USC §112(b) above and their interrelation with one another. The specification, as interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the art, fails to provide reasonable certainty as to how the claim limitations should be interpreted and the intended boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. Considerable speculation is required to interpret the intended meaning of the claim and what the claim is intended to encompass. As such, the examiner is unable to interpret the meaning and scope of this claim with substantial certainty that would be required to attempt to apply prior art to reject the claim. Therefore, the examiner will not attempt to apply prior art to reject this claim because unreasonable and speculative assumptions as to the proper interpretation of claimed limitations that would be required to reject the claim on the basis of prior art would be improper. (See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), MPEP §2143.03(I), MPEP §2173.06(II)¶2; “it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions”; “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electronic module of the control unit" and "the inoperative state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the brake pipe within a trail vehicle of the vehicles" and "the electronic module of the multi-unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the brake pipe", “the electronic module of the control unit” and "the inoperative state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pressure in the brake pipe" and "the electronic modules of the control unit and the isolation unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the brake pipe" and "the pressure signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electronic module of the multi-unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the brake pipe within a trail vehicle" and "the electronic modules of the valve unit and the multi-unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 also recites, “a pressure in a brake cylinder equalizing pipe within a lead vehicle” which has been previously established, therefore it is unclear if the claim is referring to a new pipe or the previous.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the electronic module of the control unit", “the brake pipe”, and "the charging unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pressure", “the brake cylinder”, and "the control unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 14, and 15 are rejected because they depend on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian et al. (CN111634276A) hereinafter Tian.
Claim 1:
Tian discloses a brake control system comprising: a controller [Fig. 2, Item 5] configured to receive input indicating a directed change in a brake setting for one or more vehicles in a multi-vehicle system [Fig. 1]; and brake units disposed onboard different ones of the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system, the brake units including electronic modules (Items 10, 11) and pneumatic modules (Items 3, 4), the pneumatic modules configured to be controlled by the electronic modules to control braking of the vehicles, the controller configured to send electronic signals to the electronic modules of the brake units based on the input that is received by the controller [Summary of the invention ¶¶3-4], the controller configured to determine an inoperative state of a first electronic module of the brake units that is onboard a first vehicle of the vehicles and to direct a different, second electronic module of the brake units that is onboard the first vehicle or a second vehicle of the vehicles to control the brake unit of the first vehicle responsive to determining the inoperative state of the first electronic module [Summary of the invention ¶¶13-14; Item 5].
Claim 14:
Tian, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Tian also discloses wherein the vehicles are rail vehicles. [Summary of the invention ¶12]
Claim 15:
Tian, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Tian also discloses wherein the brake units are disposed on different ones of the vehicles. [Summary of the invention ¶12]
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LV et al. (US 2021/0309191 A1) hereinafter LV.
Claim 2:
Tian, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Tian doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the inoperative state of the first electronic module by identifying a difference in a commanded pressure that the first electronic module directs a first pneumatic module of the pneumatic modules to implement, and a measured pressure brought about by the first pneumatic module.
However, LV does disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the inoperative state of the first electronic module by identifying a difference in a commanded pressure that the first electronic module directs a first pneumatic module of the pneumatic modules to implement, and a measured pressure brought about by the first pneumatic module. [¶¶102-103]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Tian with the failure detection of LV to determine if a fault exists within the pressure generation means that could result in system failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747