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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 5/27/2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 2/27/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 5/27/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 2/27/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CN111634276A) hereinafter Tian and Tione (US 2015/0083529 A1) hereinafter Tione.
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
Tian doesn’t explicitly disclose the second electronic module of the brake units that is onboard or a second vehicle of the vehicles.
However, Tione does disclose the second electronic module of the brake units that is onboard or a second vehicle of the vehicles
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 control system of Tian with the redundant control backup of Tione to increase the reliability of the system by providing multiple units on different portions of the train consist.
Claim 4:
Tian and Tione, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Tian doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the brake units comprise a multi-unit configured to control a pressure in a brake pipe within a trail vehicle of the vehicles, wherein the controller is configured to control a pressure in a brake pipe within a lead vehicle of the vehicles, and wherein the controller is configured to direct an electronic module of the multi-unit to generate a pressure signal via an auxiliary module to change the pressure in the brake pipe responsive to determining that first electronic module is in the inoperative state.
However, Tione does disclose wherein the brake units comprise a multi-unit configured to control a pressure in a brake pipe within a trail vehicle of the vehicles, wherein the controller is configured to control a pressure in a brake pipe within a lead vehicle of the vehicles, and wherein the controller is configured to direct an electronic module of the multi-unit to generate a pressure signal via an auxiliary module to change the pressure in the brake pipe responsive to determining that first electronic module is in the inoperative state. [¶¶58-60; Fig. 4 shows the common brake pipes being controlled by the ECBPS 411 on the trail locomotive 403]
Claim 14:
Tian and Tione, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Tian also discloses wherein the vehicles comprise rail vehicles. [Summary of the invention ¶12]
Claim 15:
Tian and Tione, as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian and Tione as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hollandsworth et al. (US 2005/0099061 A1) hereinafter Hollandsworth.
Claim 12:
Tian and Tione, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Tian doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the electronic modules comprise one or more electro-pneumatic valves for controlling pressure between the brake units and one or more transducers to monitor the pressure.
However, Hollandsworth does disclose wherein the electronic modules comprise one or more electro-pneumatic valves for controlling pressure between the brake units and one or more transducers to monitor the pressure. [¶¶13]
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 control system of Tian and Tione with the valves and transducers of Hollandsworth to provide known sensors and actuators for operating the brake system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian and Tione as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dimsa et al. (US 5,222,788) hereinafter Dimsa.
Claim 13:
Tian and Tione, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Tian doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the pneumatic modules comprise one or more of a relay valve, a double check valve, or a 3/2 valve.
However, Hollandsworth does disclose wherein the pneumatic modules comprise one or more of a relay valve, a double check valve, or a 3/2 valve. [col. 1, lines 25-45]
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 control system of Tian and Tione with the valves of Dimsa to provide known pressure control means for the train brake system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2: LV et al. (US 2021/0309191 A1) discloses comparing the expected/input pressure with the actual BCE/brake-cylinder output pressure and uses that pressure difference to determine is a failure has occurred in a valve [¶¶102-103]. It would require impermissible hindsight to apply the teachings of determining a valve failure to an electronic module.
Regarding Claim 3: Bailey (US 2018/0265065 A1) discloses a backup brake pipe controller with an auxiliary passage, pneumatic valves, charge/vent valves, a charge command increase BP pressure [¶¶51-52, 61-64] but doesn't disclose the specific sequence of changing the pressure in the brake pipe in response to a determination that the electronic module is inoperative.
Regarding Claim 5: Chlumecky et al. (US 2020/0094804 A1) discloses redundant locomotive brakes which can control the other's braking [¶¶11, 15, 17-20] but doesn't disclose the multi-unit generating a pressure signal by an auxiliary module in response to a first electronic module being inoperative.
Regarding Claim 6: Sherwood et al. (US 6,098,006) discloses a networked modular brake control, a power supply, brake pressure cutoff, and emergency venting but doesn't disclose a specific isolation brake unit and doesn't specify a power supply to the specific electronic module of that isolation unit.
Regarding Claims 7-11 are indicated as allowable based on their dependence on an allowed base claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights