DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 07/12/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filled on 07/12/2024 is recognized.
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 01/14/2022 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/12/2024 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP § 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) a process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
MPEP § 2106.03 : None-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
Transitory forms of signals transmission (often referred to as “signal per se”), such as propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under the Leahy-Smith America Invents (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16,2011).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claimed invention is directed to software per se. Claim 24 comprises a computer program. The Specification does not explicitly define the claim elements “computer program” as hardware and a program may be a software program (see for example Computer Desktop Encyclopedia “Software”). Therefore, the claimed device is software per se.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claimed invention is directed to signal per se. Claims 25-26 comprise transitory forms of signal transmission. The Specification does not explicitly define the claim elements “data carrier” or “a data carrier signal” as hardware and does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture. Therefore, the claimed device is signal per se.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 recite “… multiple rail vehicles as regards a distinction, …”, is not clear if a distinction, is the same as “a distinction”, mentioned in claim 15 or is a different distinction, since claim 27 is dependent on claim 15.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 27 recite “…between a track section-caused change and a vehicle- caused change in the equivalent conicity”, is not clear if a track section-caused change, a vehicle- caused change, are the same as “a track section-caused”, “a vehicle- caused change” mentioned in claim 15 or they are different, since claim 27 is dependent on claim 15.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 20 and 22 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.
Claim 20 recites “ …. a heat energy content of the wheels …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “ …. outputting a message regarding defects on the wheels of the rail vehicle …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “ …. such as wheel speeds or the running speed …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “ …. one or more of the following measures are carried out …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “ …. regarding defects on the rail,…”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “ …. outputting a message to the driver …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “ …. outputting a message to the driver regarding the wheel state …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-19, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Worden (US 2017/0084094) in view of Wennekamp (US 2017/0158212).
Claims 1-14, are canceled.
Regarding claim 15, Worden discloses the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
A method for operating a rail vehicle comprising: detecting a running stability of the rail vehicle using measurements; (Worden, Paras. [0033]-[0037], [0054]-[0056], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, teaches vibration sensors, accelerometers, wheel vibration monitoring, and hunting frequency monitoring (i.e., using measurements) to evaluate wheel condition (i.e., detecting a running stability)).
determining a conicity prediction regarding a change in wheel profiles of the rail vehicle (Worden, Paras. [0049]-[0056], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, “… vibrations measured by one or more of the sensors 116 can be examined to identify uneven wear of one or more wheels in a vehicle and/or to predict when repair to a wheel is needed (e.g., to change the uneven profile to an even profile)”, “… the hunting frequency can be based on the moving speed of the vehicle or wheel/axle set, the wheel conicity, the contact distance, and the radius of a wheel …”, which teaches wheel vibration monitoring, prediction of maintenance needs, uneven wheel profile determination, wheel conicity, and relationship between conicity and hunting behavior).
for the conicity prediction, a distance traveled since a wheel profiling is measured and a computation rule is used to determine an expected change in wheel profiles of the rail vehicle from this; (Worden, Paras. [0049]-[0054], [0072]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, “… identify wear of a wheel and predict when maintenance, repair, or replacement of the wheel is needed based on vibrations measured by one or more of the sensors”, “… vibrations measured by one or more of the sensors 116 can be examined to identify uneven wear of one or more wheels in a vehicle and/or to predict when repair to a wheel is needed (e.g., to change the uneven profile to an even profile”, “The uneven profile 402 of a wheel 112 can be characterized by a wheel conicity (δ.sub.0), which represents an angle between the actual profile or surface 400 of the wheel 112 and a flat profile or surface of the wheel 112, ….”, “The conicities of one or more of the wheels 112 in the wheel/axle set 600 causes the hunting movement of the wheel/axle set 600”, “the frequency may be the hunting frequency of a wheel/axle set while the magnitude of the peak vibration may represent the lateral acceleration caused by hunting of the wheel/axle set. At 1208, a determination is made as to whether the frequency and/or magnitude correspond with a wheel conicity relationship”
Worden does not explicitly disclose:
by a computer taking into account a distance traveled,
using the running stability and the conicity prediction to make a distinction between a track section-caused change and a vehicle-caused change in an equivalent conicity.
However, Wennekamp teaches:
by a computer taking into account a distance traveled, (Wennekamp, Paras. [0014]-[0019], [0034]-[0041], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, “the speed is increased if the rail vehicle has remained within a non-critical vibration state range of the wheel set over a predefined travel span. Travel span …. a period of time or a distance covered. For example, the predefined travel span can be a period of 30 min, a distance of 50 km … a plurality of travel spans are predefined, particularly as a function of a current speed of the rail vehicle”, which teaches a distance based evaluation. “The maximum speed is advantageously limited to a travel span, so that, once that distance is covered or …”, “If within a particular travel span … no new instability occurs,…”, teaches the use of travelled distance in evaluation and decision making).
using the running stability and the conicity prediction to make a distinction between a track section-caused change and a vehicle-caused change in an equivalent conicity. (Wennekamp, Paras. [0014]-[0019], [0034]-[0041], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, “The instability can be affected by on-board and/or track-related variables” (i.e., track section caused change), “Critical vibration states may occur repeatedly within a speed interval and/or on one and the same wheel set if they are influenced at least largely by a vehicle-related variable” (i.e., vehicle caused change), “From the rail profile, the deviation of the profile from a nominal profile and/or the equivalent conicity can be determined”, (i.e., an equivalent conicity). And further teaches that instability of wheelset may arise from track related variables or vehicle related variables).
Worden and Wennekamp are combinable, because both are from the same field of monitoring and evaluating railway vehicle wheel condition and analysis. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize identifying track related or vehicle related causes/sources for evaluation and decision making as taught by Wennekamp, in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of diagnosing the condition of wheels.
Regarding claim 16, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein data from a measuring device, which takes acceleration measurements on a running gear frame of the rail vehicle, are evaluated to detect the running stability. (Worden, Paras. [0033]-[0040], [0054]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, “… one or more of the sensors may include an accelerometer that measures movements …”, “During movement, a sensor can measure vibrations”, “The vibrations of a wheel/axle set can be measured by one or more sensors 116. These vibrations can be sampled continuously, periodically, or on demand by …in order to determine if the vibrations indicate the conicity of one or more wheels of the wheel/axle set”, “the vibrations can be examined at one or more frequencies that are based on the operational speed in order to determine whether a wheel is damaged”, “The vibration signature can be examined to avoid inadvertently identifying a peak as indicative of wheel conicity, … hunting frequencies, and wheel condition”, Therefore, teaches a measuring device taking acceleration or vibration measurements, and evaluating measured data to detect and determine the hunting movement of the wheelset (i.e., the running stability)).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0014]-[0015], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, “Each truck 10 is connected to the car 6 via a damper …”, “… the acceleration or rather of the measured variable 70 is performed by the determining device 18 on a wheel set 12 of the rail vehicle 2”, teaches measurements on a running gear frame).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the distinction is made by comparing the running stability and the conicity predication with one another. (Worden, Paras. [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, evaluating hunting frequency/wheelset behavior (i.e., running stability), determining wheel profile changes (i.e., the conicity prediction) which teaches that the hunting frequency and hunting distance are dependent upon wheel conicity And further teaches that measured vibration state is compared with a set point value).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0009]-[0015], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, teaches running stability evaluation. And further teaches that measured vibration state is compared with a set point value, which can be compared to the conicity prediction taught by Worden to provide an indication of whether the behavior is related to wheel condition).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claims 15-17. Worden and Wennekamp disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 17, wherein, when making the distinction, a decision is made that the cause is the track section if the running stability indicates a greater change in the equivalent conicity than the conicity prediction, and a decision is made that the cause is the vehicle if the running stability indicates a similar change in the equivalent conicity to the conicity prediction. (Worden, Paras. [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, “The uneven profile 402 of a wheel 112 can be characterized by a wheel conicity (δ.sub.0), which represents …”, “… predict when maintenance, repair, or replacement of the wheel is needed based on vibrations measured by one or more of the sensors”, “The vibration signature can be examined ... as indicative of wheel conicity,… and hunting behavior”, where the hunting behavior serves as an indicator of running stability.).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0009]-[0018], [0034]-[0040], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, teaches that the vibration state is compared with a set point value. And further teaches that measured acceleration is compared to a threshold (predetermined limit value) to determine stability state. Therefore, teaches decision making based on comparison of stability behavior against an expected value).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein, if a decision is made that the cause is the track section, location-related information is additionally incorporated to make it possible to locate damage to the track section. (Worden, Paras. [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, teaches wheel condition and conicity prediction analysis).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0013]-[0018], [0037]-[0040], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, teaches identifying instability from a track section, and location information of the damaged (worn) track section using GPS information).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 22, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein, after the distinction is made, one or more of the following measures are carried out: outputting a message regarding defects on the rail, outputting a message regarding defects on the wheels of the rail vehicle, outputting a message to the driver regarding the wheel state or a future braking behavior. (Worden, Paras. [0049], [0050]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, teaches wheel condition (wear/damage) and conicity prediction analysis. And further teaches communicating signals/messages to off board locations, and scheduling repair/inspection).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0013]-[0018], [0037]-[0040], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, teaches identifying a track caused change vs a vehicle cause change, monitoring location information of the damaged (worn) track section using GPS information, modifying vehicle operation based on detected instability).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 23, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp disclose:
A data processing device or system, comprising: means for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 15. claim 23 encompass same or similar scope as claim 15. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp disclose:
A computer program, comprising: instructions which, when the program is run by a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 15. (Worden, Paras. [0049], [0050]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, teaches a control system software that process sensor data, and performs wheel condition analysis, and maintenance).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0013]-[0018], [0037]-[0040], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, teaches identifying a track caused change vs a vehicle cause change, monitoring location information of the damaged (worn) track section using GPS information, modifying vehicle operation based on detected instability).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 25, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden discloses:
A computer-readable data carrier, on which the computer program as claimed in claim 24 is stored. (Worden, [0048]-[0049], [0050]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Fig. 11, at steps 1202, 1208, teaches the software instructions discussed for claim 24 are stored in the memory associated with the controller and executes to perform the operation of claim 15).
Regarding claim 26, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden discloses:
A data carrier signal, which communicates the computer program as claimed in claim 24. (Worden, [0048]-[0049], [0050]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], teaches the communications of signals between sensors, controllers, and off board locations, maintenance operations through signals and transmission paths).
Regarding claim 27, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Worden and Wennekamp discloses:
A data processing device or system, comprising means for receiving, evaluating and storing information from multiple rail vehicles as regards a distinction, made by a method as claimed in claim 15, between a track section-caused change and a vehicle- caused change in the equivalent conicity. (Worden, Paras. [0031]-[0042], [0049]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0071]-[0073], Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 11, at steps 1202, 1208, teaches a computerized system receiving sensor information and performing analysis. Shows evaluating of vibration measurements (i.e., information). Evaluates wheel profile changes, predicts conicity and maintenance, therefore, teaches storing measurements information).
(Wennekamp, Paras. [0013]-[0018], [0034]-[0042], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0069], and Figs. 1, teaches receiving information from multiple rail vehicles, and determining whether the instability caused by a worn track section or vehicle wheel condition (i.e., as regards of distinction) ).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 15 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Worden (US 2017/0084094) in view of Wennekamp (US 2017/0158212), and further in view of Sakai (JP6997694).
Regarding claim 20, Worden and Wennekamp disclose the limitations of claim 15. Sakai discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the rail vehicle has shoe-type brakes, a heat energy content of the wheels is determined from detected data regarding braking operations that have taken place with the shoe-type brakes, wherein the data include brake pressures or braking forces or brake torques, and also kinematic variables such as wheel speeds or the running speed of the rail vehicle, and a computer makes a second conicity prediction regarding a change in wheel profiles of the rail vehicle from this. (Sakai, Paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023]-[0025], [0037]-[0040], “during braking, a pressing force Fp of the brake shoe 31 by … is generated”, “… a braking force Fb, …. generated by friction between the brake shoe 31 and the tread 13…”,(i.e., shoe-type brakes, … brake pressures or braking forces), “… Calculation of Thermal Distribution in Wheel Based on the heat input to …”, “heat flux”, “temperature profile inside the wheel”, “…the amount of heat generated due to the frictional force is reflected in the subsequent calculation of the heat distribution in the wheel 10”, (i.e., heat energy content)). Please note that: conicity prediction is taught by Worden, wherein using braking data for the second prediction.
Worden, Wennekamp and Sakai are combinable, because all are from the same field of monitoring and evaluating railway vehicle wheel condition and analysis. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize wheel temperature and the resulted wheel profile degradation as taught by Sakai, in order to improve required maintenance and vehicle performance.
Regarding claim 21, Worden, Wennekamp and Sakai disclose the limitations of claim 20. Worden, Wennekamp and Sakai disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 20, wherein the distinction between a track- related cause and a vehicle-related cause is additionally made using the second conicity prediction. (Sakai, Paras. [0005]-[0006], [0023]-[0025], [0037]-[0040], teaches brake shoe forces generate frictional heat, wheel temperature changes the material properties, and tread damage causes wheel profile to change over time).
Please note that Worden teaches predicting wheel profile changes and wheel conicities from measured wheel behavior. And Wennekamp teaches distinguishing vehicle caused instability from track caused instability using running stability evaluation and track condition.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 20 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Park (US 12,344,209) teaches a parking release time based on a temperature of the electric drum brake.
Friesen (US 2012/0259487) teaches a method for monitoring the state of a bogie of a railway vehicle having at least one wheel set.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 15-27 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights