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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because the phrase "the first valve and/or the second valve is/are solenoid valves" uses alternative and singular/plural forms that obscure the intended alternatives.
Suggested Correction:
Claim 21 may be amended to recite, for example, "wherein at least one of the first valve and the second valve is a solenoid valve," or to recite the intended alternatives in separate claims.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Issue
The claims do not define an objective comparison between air mass and the height-variation electrical signal.
Claim Language
Claim 36 recites that "the working state of the valve device is determined by comparing the air mass of the secondary suspension system with the height variation electrical signal."
Affected Claims
Claims 37-39 inherit the indefinite comparison through their dependencies from claim 36.
Analysis
Air mass and an electrical signal are different physical quantities. The claims and specification do not identify the values to be compared, any normalization or expected relationship, a time window, a threshold, or which working state follows from a comparison result. A person of ordinary skill therefore cannot determine with reasonable certainty what comparison falls within the claims.
Suggested Correction:
Claim 36 may be amended to identify the measured or calculated air-mass value, the height value represented by the signal, the time interval or operating event over which the values are evaluated, the expected relationship or threshold, and the working-state determination produced by each comparison result. Claims 37-39 should be conformed to the clarified dependency.
Prior-Art Construction
The prior-art rejections below reasonably construe the disputed comparison as evaluating a calculated secondary-suspension air mass in relation to height information during height adjustment. That construction does not cure the separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - CN106627633A.
Reference 2 - CN214702772U.
Reference 3 - CN203511676U.
Reference 4 - US7887065B2.
Reference 5 - US20080252025A1.
Reference 6 - US20190054933A1.
Reference 7 - DE102010041605A1.
Reference 8 - US6735549B2.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
Reference 1 was published May 10, 2017, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) An electric control leveling valve for a vehicle, the electric control leveling valve comprising:
(L2) a vehicle height variation detection device configured to detect a height variation of a vehicle body of the vehicle and generate a height variation electrical signal characterizing the height variation of the vehicle body;
(L3) a control device configured to generate a corresponding valve control command based on the height variation electrical signal; and
(L4) a valve device in gaseous communication with a secondary suspension system of the vehicle and configured to adjust an air mass of the secondary suspension system based on the valve control command.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses an electrically controlled leveling arrangement for a rail vehicle.
(L2) Its infrared distance-measuring instrument 3 and reflector 2 detect the air-spring gap and produce electrical measurement information characterizing vehicle-body height variation.
(L3) Processor 4 derives suspension height from that information, determines whether inflation or exhaust is required, and issues the corresponding instruction.
(L4) Magnetic valve 1 is pneumatically connected to the air-spring secondary suspension and charges or exhausts the air spring in response to the processor instruction, thereby changing the air mass in the suspension. See Reference 1, abstract, Figures 1-2, and the corresponding description.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the vehicle is a railway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses the detector, processor, commanded pneumatic valve, and secondary-suspension air-mass adjustment mapped for claim 16.
(L2) Reference 1 expressly applies that arrangement to a railway vehicle having an air-spring secondary suspension. See Reference 1, abstract, technical field, and Figures 1-2.
________________________________________
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A vehicle comprising:
(L2) an electric control leveling valve comprising:
(L3) a vehicle height variation detection device configured to detect a height variation of a vehicle body of the vehicle and generate a height variation electrical signal characterizing the height variation of the vehicle body;
(L4) a control device configured to generate a corresponding valve control command based on the height variation electrical signal; and
(L5) a valve device in gaseous communication with a secondary suspension system of the vehicle and configured to adjust an air mass of the secondary suspension system based on the valve control command; and
(L6) a secondary suspension system, wherein the electric control leveling valve is configured to control the secondary suspension system.
Analysis
(L1)-(L2) Reference 1 installs its electric height-monitoring and adjustment arrangement in a rail vehicle.
(L3) infrared distance measuring instrument 3 and reflector 2 provide electrical height-variation measurement information.
(L4) Processor 4 derives height and issues the inflation or exhaust instruction.
(L5) Magnetic valve 1 is in gaseous communication with the air spring and changes the air mass in response to that instruction.
(L6) The controlled air spring is the rail vehicle's secondary suspension. See Reference 1, abstract, Figures 1-2, and the corresponding description.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the electric control leveling valve further comprises a pressure sensor configured to detect air pressure of the secondary suspension system.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2) Reference 2 discloses an electronically controlled suspension having a controller connected to both a height sensor and a pressure sensor that detects pressure of the controlled airbag, with a solenoid valve controlling inflation and deflation. See Reference 2, abstract, claim 1, and the corresponding figures.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Reference 2's pressure sensor to Reference 1's electronically controlled secondary suspension because Reference 2 uses pressure feedback in the same air-suspension control environment to monitor and control inflation and deflation. The addition would predictably provide direct pneumatic-state feedback while retaining Reference 1's height-based command.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the vehicle height variation detection device is constructed as a rotary detection device configured to convert the height variation of the vehicle body into a rotary motion.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2) Reference 3 discloses rod 23 and connecting rod 24 transmitting vehicle-body and bogie height change to operating shaft 22, which rotates as the air-spring height changes. Resolver 40 converts that rotation into an electrical output representing height. See Reference 3, Figures 1-4 and the corresponding description.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 3's integrated rotary detector in Reference 1 to obtain the compact rotary height signal that Reference 3 expressly teaches, with the known sensor arrangement performing its ordinary function.
________________________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the valve device comprises a first valve and a second valve configured to control inflation and deflation of the secondary suspension system.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2) Reference 6 discloses a railway-vehicle air-spring controller in which each electromagnetic valve device includes a supply valve 31S that controls air-spring inflation and an exhaust valve 31E that controls air-spring deflation. Valve driver 52 commands the two valves. See Reference 6, abstract, Figures 2-6, and the description of electromagnetic valve system 20.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 6's separate supply and exhaust valves in Reference 1's commanded railway air-spring circuit because Reference 6 teaches that arrangement in the same field to independently control supply and exhaust and to permit valve-operation monitoring. The substitution would predictably provide the claimed inflation and deflation control.
________________________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 20,
(L2) wherein the first valve and/or the second valve is/are solenoid valves.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 and Reference 6 disclose the electric control leveling valve and separate supply and exhaust valves mapped for claim 20.
(L2) Reference 6 expressly identifies each supply valve 31S and exhaust valve 31E as an electromagnetic valve in electromagnetic valve devices 21A-21C. See Reference 6, abstract and Figures 2-6.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 6's electromagnetic, or solenoid-actuated, construction for the two valves because it provides direct electrical control by valve driver 52 and predictably implements Reference 1's electronic command. This rejection applies to each reasonably readable alternative in the claim and does not cure the separate objection.
________________________________________
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 20,
(L2) wherein the first valve and the second valve are arranged side by side.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 and Reference 6 disclose the electric control leveling valve and first supply and second exhaust valves mapped for claim 20.
(L2) Reference 6's Figure 3 shows supply valve 31S and exhaust valve 31E next to one another in the common valve body 22 of first electromagnetic valve device 21A. The two valves are therefore arranged side by side.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 6's illustrated side-by-side arrangement when installing its supply and exhaust valves in Reference 1 because the common-body layout is compact, permits shared pneumatic passages, and is the arrangement Reference 6 uses for the same railway air-spring function.
________________________________________
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the vehicle height variation detection device comprises a drive rod and an encoder,
(L3) wherein the drive rod is connected to the vehicle body and is configured to rotate as the height of the vehicle body varies,
(L4) and the encoder is configured to be driven by the drive rod to generate the height variation electrical signal.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2)-(L3) Reference 3's rod 23 and connecting rod 24 couple relative vehicle-body and bogie height change to operating shaft 22, which rotates with the height change.
(L4) Resolver 40 is driven by shaft 22 and generates an electrical rotation and height output; Reference 3 also identifies an encoder as a known alternative rotation-angle sensor. See Reference 3, Figures 1-4 and the corresponding description.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate Reference 3's rotary height transducer with Reference 1 to share the vehicle-height link and produce a compact electrical sensor. Applying that teaching to Reference 1 would predictably produce the claimed rod-driven height detector.
________________________________________
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 23,
(L2) wherein the encoder is a photoelectric encoder.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 3 disclose the rod-driven rotary electrical height detector mapped for claim 23.
(L2) Reference 5 discloses a vehicle-height link rotating shaft 160 and an optical transducer having light emitters, optical bridges, and photodetectors that convert the rotation into an electrical signal representing vehicle height. See Reference 5, Figures 3-8 and the corresponding description.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Reference 5's optical rotary transducer as the encoder in the References 1 and 3 arrangement because it is a known vehicle-height transducer that converts the same link-driven rotation into the same electrical height information. The substitution would predictably provide noncontact photoelectric sensing.
________________________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the electric control leveling valve further comprises a housing,
(L3) wherein at least a portion of at least one of the vehicle height variation detection device, the control device, and the valve device is disposed within the housing.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2)-(L3) Reference 4 discloses an integrated height-control-valve housing 20 containing control unit 30 and valve assembly 50, with sensor, controller, and valve components protected within the housing. See Reference 4, Figures 2-5 and the corresponding description.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to package Reference 1's controller and pneumatic valve in Reference 4's established height-control-valve housing because both references concern vehicle height-control valves and the enclosure predictably protects the components while providing a compact, serviceable unit.
________________________________________
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 25,
(L2) wherein the electric control leveling valve further comprises a top cover mounted to the housing.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 4 disclose the integrated housing arrangement mapped for claim 25.
(L2) Reference 4 discloses housing cover 22 mounted over housing 20 to close and protect the integrated valve. See Reference 4, Figures 2-5.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 4's mounted cover when using its housing for Reference 1's components because the cover is the disclosed ordinary way to close the housing while permitting assembly and service.
________________________________________
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 26,
(L2) wherein the top cover is mounted to the housing in a sealed manner via a sealing gasket.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 4 disclose the covered housing arrangement mapped for claim 26.
(L2) Reference 4 discloses seal 23 positioned between cover 22 and housing 20 to seal the interior. See Reference 4, Figures 2-5 and the corresponding description.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 4's seal 23 because it predictably excludes moisture and contaminants from the electrical and pneumatic components within the covered housing.
________________________________________
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 26,
(L2) wherein the top cover is fixed to the housing via a fastener.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 4 disclose the covered housing arrangement mapped for claim 26.
(L2) Reference 4 discloses fasteners 24 securing cover 22 to housing 20. See Reference 4, Figures 2-5.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 4's fasteners because they predictably secure the removable cover and maintain the sealed enclosure during vehicle operation.
________________________________________
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 25,
(L2) wherein the housing is provided with an air inlet and an air outlet,
(L3) and the air inlet is provided with an air inlet fitting.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 4 disclose the integrated housing arrangement mapped for claim 25.
(L2) Reference 4 discloses supply port 53 connected to compressed-air source 108, suspension port 55 connected to air spring 102, and exhaust port 57 connected to exhaust line 12.
(L3) Reference 4 does not assign a separate numeral to an inlet fitting, but expressly configures supply port 53 for connection to compressed-air supply line 107. Providing the conventional connector or fitting at port 53 that permits the disclosed removable pneumatic-line connection supplies the added limitation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a conventional pneumatic fitting at Reference 4's connectable supply port 53 because the disclosed supply line 107 must be joined to the port to admit compressed air. The fitting performs its ordinary sealing and detachable-connection function while the integrated valve housing controls Reference 1's air spring.
________________________________________
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the control device is further configured to be capable of determining a working state of the valve device at least based on the air mass of the secondary suspension system and the height variation electrical signal during adjustment of the height of the vehicle body.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2) Reference 1 supplies the claimed electric control leveling valve. Reference 6 supplies height-based commands and determination of the operating or failure state of supply valve 31S and exhaust valve 31E through acquisition section 53 and determination section 54, but Reference 1 and Reference 6 do not determine that state from suspension air mass. Reference 7 supplies the missing quantity by calculating air mass from measured suspension pressure and air-spring volume derived from suspension height. See Reference 6, abstract, Figures 2-4 and 10-12; Reference 7, abstract, claims 1-3, and the description of pressure and height sensing.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to feed Reference 7's calculated suspension-air-mass value into Reference 6's determination section 54 during a commanded height change. All three references concern electronically controlled air springs; Reference 6 already evaluates valve response to a height command, and Reference 7's mass value directly represents the pneumatic charge expected to change when that command opens a supply or exhaust valve. Using the mass value as an additional determination input would predictably distinguish a commanded height adjustment from a valve that failed to produce the expected pneumatic response.
________________________________________
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 35,
(L2) wherein the working state of the valve device is determined by comparing the air mass of the secondary suspension system with the height variation electrical signal.
Analysis
(L1) Claim 36 includes every limitation of claim 35 under the Reference 1-Reference 6-Reference 7 ground mapped above.
(L2) Reference 6's determination section 54 compares acquired valve-operation information with expected relationships and thresholds, but References 1 and 6 do not compare air mass with the height-variation signal. Reference 7 supplies calculated suspension air mass from pressure and height-derived volume. Feeding that mass into determination section 54 together with Reference 6's height information supplies the missing comparison under the reasonable construction stated in the section 112(b) analysis. See Reference 6, abstract and Figures 10-12; Reference 7, abstract and claims 1-3.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have determination section 54 compare Reference 7's calculated air mass with the height-variation information during the commanded adjustment. A mismatch between pneumatic-mass change and resulting height change predictably identifies a valve that did not produce its commanded suspension response, using each reference's measured quantity for its established diagnostic purpose.
________________________________________
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 36,
(L2) wherein the control device is further configured to diagnose a health status of the electric control leveling valve by monitoring the vehicle height variation detection device and/or the valve device.
Analysis
(L1) References 1, 6, and 7 disclose the base arrangement and working-state evaluation mapped for claim 36.
(L2) Reference 6 monitors supply-valve and exhaust-valve operation information and determines whether a failure exists in the electromagnetic valve device. Monitoring the valve device satisfies the claim's "and/or" alternative. See Reference 6, abstract, acquisition section 53, determination section 54, and Figures 4 and 10-12.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 6's valve-health diagnosis in the combined controller because it is expressly designed for the same railway air-spring valve system and predictably detects a valve whose monitored operation departs from the expected relationship.
________________________________________
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 37,
(L2) wherein the health status includes faults and/or a remaining service life.
Analysis
(L1) References 1, 6, and 7 disclose the health-status diagnosis mapped for claim 37.
(L2) Reference 6 expressly determines the occurrence of a fault in a supply or exhaust valve. A fault satisfies the claim's "faults and/or a remaining service life" alternative. See Reference 6, abstract and determination section 54.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to express the diagnosed valve health as a fault status because that is the direct output Reference 6 produces from its monitored valve-operation information and thresholds.
________________________________________
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6 and Reference 7 and further in view of Reference 8.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 38,
(L2) wherein diagnosis of the health status of the electric control leveling valve further introduces historical data of the electric control leveling valve and/or relevant data of other electric control leveling valves of the same type as the electric control leveling valve.
Analysis
(L1) References 1, 6, and 7 disclose the valve-health determination mapped for claim 38.
(L2) Reference 8 teaches comparing data from similar components to assess equipment health and aging (col. 6, lines 1-16), predictive valve analysis using valve and switch timing, operational-cycle counts, and trended in-service valve-test results for air, motor, hydraulic, and solenoid valve operators (col. 7, lines 6-16), and statistical models based on previous operational experience with similar equipment (col. 8, lines 14-20).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply its historical trending and similar-equipment comparisons to Reference 6's monitored railway-valve information. The predictable result would be a diagnosis informed by both the subject valve's history and same-type comparison data.
________________________________________
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 16,
(L2) wherein the control device is further configured to monitor actions of the valve device.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 as mapped above.
(L2) Reference 6 discloses acquisition section 53 monitoring opening and closing actions of supply valve 31S and exhaust valve 31E from the valve driver or valves. See Reference 6, abstract and the description of acquisition section 53.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Reference 6's valve-action monitoring in Reference 1 because Reference 6 uses those monitored actions in the same railway air-spring system to determine valve performance and faults. The addition would predictably provide diagnostic information without changing the underlying height-control function.
________________________________________
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The electric control leveling valve according to claim 40,
(L2) wherein monitoring actions of the valve device includes counting a number of actions of the valve device.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 6 disclose valve-action monitoring as mapped for claim 40.
(L2) Reference 6 expressly defines supply-control information and exhaust-control information as the number of times the respective supply and exhaust valves open and close during a predetermined period. See Reference 6, abstract and the description of acquisition section 53.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 6's opening-and-closing counts because they are the expressly taught monitored quantities for determining valve operation and failure and can be obtained directly from the valve driver as simple binary control information.
________________________________________
Reasons for Indicated Allowability
Claims 27-30 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all limitations of the base and intervening claims.
Claims 27-29 recite the coordinated arrangement of an electrical connector on a top cover, placement at a lateral side of the cover, and a top-cover boss at a position corresponding to the connector. The focused searches did not establish that connector/lateral-side/boss combination in the reviewed art. Reference 4 supplies a covered integrated valve housing but not that coordinated top-cover connector arrangement.
Claim 30 depends from claim 26 and adds only that the top cover has a through-hole through which the vehicle-height detector extends. The focused searches did not establish the inherited claim-26 covered housing together with a detector-only through-hole in the top cover. That reason is separate from the connector and boss distinctions of claims 27-29.
Claim 34 recites an open-top square housing with the air inlet on a first side surface and the air outlet on an adjacent second side surface. The focused housing and port-layout searches did not establish that complete arrangement. Reference 4 supplies pneumatic ports and an integrated housing but does not establish the claimed square open-top geometry and adjacent-side placement.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Canceled Claims: 1-15.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 102: 16, 18, and 42.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103: 17, 19-26, 31-33, and 35-41.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 112: 36-39.
Objected-to Claims: 21 and 27-30 and 34.
Allowed Claims: None in present form. Claims 27-30 and 34 are indicated allowable if rewritten in independent form as stated above.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 16-26, 31-33, and 35-42 are rejected as stated above. Claims 27-30 and 34 are indicated allowable only if rewritten in independent form to include all limitations of the base and intervening claims.
Art Considered but Not Applied
US4693185A was reviewed but not used because References 1, 3, and 6 more directly provide the electrical railway height-control, rotary-detection, and valve-monitoring teachings relied upon in this action.
US20190084595A1 was reviewed but not used because Reference 4 more directly supplies the relied integrated covered housing, seal, fasteners, and pneumatic-port structure, while the searched document does not establish the complete connector, boss, detector-through-hole, or adjacent-side-port arrangements of claims 27-30 and 34.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (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/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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights