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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/2/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Please provide a copy of cited foreign patent literature DE 102014015394 A1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 116e, 114e, 122e, and 132e. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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: 334f. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 1 reads "A brake control apparatus for a vehicle train having a tractor one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "A brake control apparatus for a vehicle train having a tractor and one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor" to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim 1-21 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, 11, and 18 recites the limitation "the number of towed vehicles" in line, 7, and 6-7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 11, and 18 respectively and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-6, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following:
A tractor controller arranged to:
provide a pressure change in a brake line that extends between the tractor and the one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor;
detect the pressure change provided in the brake line; and
determine a combination of towed vehicle length and the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor based upon the detected pressure change.
The limitation recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a controller (a), nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can mentally generate instructions to provide a braking operation on a tractor-trailer and verbally instruct another person to perform the operation (b), observe a pressure change caused by the instructed operation (c), and mentally, or with pen and paper, determine how long the tractor-trailer is and how many trailers are attached to the tractor based on the observed pressure change (d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the controller is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as detailed above, the controller is generically claimed.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 and 21 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim(s) is/are directed towards further generic components.
Regarding claims 2-5, the service brake line and parking brake line is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic vehicle component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic vehicle component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 6, the pressure sensors is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic vehicle component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic vehicle component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 21, the controller, memory, and program storage medium is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim(s) 7-10 and 19-20 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7-10, claim 7 provides the limitation of actuating a solenoid valve to provide a pressure change. This is definitive vehicular control that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the specific arrangement of components detailed in claims 8-10 indicate integration of the abstract idea beyond general linking into a practical application.
Regarding claims 19-20, the limitation “applying a pressure pulse”, specifically the term “applying”, indicates more than a simple generation of instructions and instead appears to be a definitive vehicular control step that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner recommends amending this applying step into independent claims 1 and 18 to overcome the 101 rejection of record. I.e. “providing” in claim 18 should be “applying”, and an “applying” step should be added to claim 1.
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, 11-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy et al. US 20240198994 A1 (hereinafter Laskawy) and Antropov et al. RU 2725834 C1 (hereinafter Antropov; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 1, Laskawy teaches a brake control apparatus for a vehicle train having a tractor and one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (Abstract discloses a tractor-trailer combination), the brake control apparatus comprising:
a tractor controller (Abstract discloses an electronic control unit capable of performing the method) arranged to (i) detect a pressure change in at least one brake line of the vehicle train in response to a brake trigger signal (Abstract discloses detecting a pressure build up in response to having applied a pressure pulse; see also paragraphs 0025-0026), and (ii) process the detected pressure change to estimate a volume of a brake line (Abstract discloses determining brake line volume based on measured pressure; see also paragraphs 0025-0026).
Laskawy does not teach processing the detected pressure change to estimate a combination of the number of the towed vehicles and a total length of the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor.
Antropov teaches processing the brake line volume to estimate a combination of the number of the towed vehicles (translated paragraph 0012 discloses number of cars in a train can be consequentially calculated from the length of the train; paragraph 0048 details calculating vehicle length based on brake line volume using one car per 14 liters to determine length in number of cars) and a total length of the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (translated paragraph 0011 discloses determining a length of a train based on volume of the brake line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Antropov such that upon determining the volume of the brake line as taught by Laskawy, the train length and number of train cars can then be calculated using the formula as taught by Antropov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of identification of end valve closure along the length of a brake line as detailed in Antropov (translated paragraphs 0009) and ensure brakes are optimally operated according to the specific tractor-trailer combination.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches that the at least one brake line of the vehicle train comprises a parking brake line associated with the one or more towed vehicles (paragraph 0055 "parking brake"), and the brake trigger signal is provided in response to release of parking brakes associated with the one or more towed vehicles (paragraph 0055 discloses a release of the parking brake).
Regarding claim 11, Laskawy teaches a brake control apparatus for a vehicle train having a tractor and one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (Abstract discloses a tractor-trailer combination), the brake control apparatus comprising:
a brake line extending between the tractor and the one or more towed vehicles (paragraph 0004 discloses brake line runs from tractor to trailer); and
a tractor controller (Abstract discloses an electronic control unit capable of performing the method) arranged to (i) apply a pressure pulse in the brake line (Abstract discloses a pressure pulse is provided to the brake control line), (ii) detect a reflected pressure pulse in the brake line in response to the applied pressure pulse (Abstract discloses the brake control line pressure build up is measured subsequent to the provided pulse which examiner understands as equivalent to the reflected pulse; see also paragraphs 0025-0026), and (iii) determine a volume of the brake line based upon the reflected pressure pulse detected in the brake line (Abstract discloses determining brake line volume based on measured pressure; see also paragraphs 0025-0026).
Laskawy does not teach determining the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor based upon the reflected pressure pulse detected in the brake line.
Antropov teaches determining the number of the towed vehicles coupled to the tractor based upon the brake line volume (translated paragraph 0012 discloses a number of cars in a train can be consequentially calculated from length of train; paragraph 0048 details calculating vehicle length based on brake line volume using one car per 14 liters to determine length in number of cars).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Antropov such that upon determining the volume of the brake line as taught by Laskawy, the number of train cars can then be calculated using the formula as taught by Antropov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of identification of end valve closure along the length of a brake line as detailed in Antropov (translated paragraphs 0009) and ensure brakes are optimally operated according to the specific tractor-trailer combination.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches that the brake line extending between the tractor and the one or more towed vehicles comprises a select one of a parking brake line (paragraph 0055 "parking brake") and a service brake line.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches that the tractor controller is arranged to process the reflected pressure pulse to determine the volume of the brake line (Abstract discloses determining brake line volume based on measured pressure; see also paragraphs 0025-0026).
Laskawy does not teach processing the reflected pressure pulse to determine a total length value that is used to calculate the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor.
Antropov further teaches processing the brake line volume to determine a total length value (translated paragraph 0011 discloses determining a length of a train based on volume of the brake line) that is used to calculate the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (translated paragraph 0012 discloses a number of cars in a train can be consequentially calculated from length of train; paragraph 0048 details calculating vehicle length based on brake line volume using one car per 14 liters to determine length in number of cars).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the further teachings of Antropov such that upon determining the volume of the brake line as taught by Laskawy, the train length and number of train cars can then be calculated using the formula as taught by Antropov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of identification of end valve closure along the length of a brake line as detailed in Antropov (translated paragraphs 0009) and ensure brakes are optimally operated according to the specific tractor-trailer combination.
Regarding claim 18, Laskawy teaches a method of operating a vehicle train having a tractor and one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (Abstract discloses a tractor trailer combination), the method comprising:
providing a pressure change (Abstract discloses a pressure pulse is provided to the brake control line) in a brake line that extends between the tractor and the one or more towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (paragraph 0004 discloses brake line runs from tractor to trailer);
detecting the pressure change provided in the brake line (Abstract discloses detecting a pressure build up in response to having applied a pressure pulse); and
determining a volume of the brake line based upon the detected pressure change (Abstract discloses determining brake line volume based on measured pressure).
Laskawy does not teach determining a combination of towed vehicle length and the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor based upon the detected pressure change.
Antropov teaches determining a combination of towed vehicle length (translated paragraph 0011 discloses determining a length of a train based on volume of the brake line) and the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor based upon the volume of the brake line (translated paragraph 0012 discloses a number of cars in a train can be consequentially calculated from length of train; paragraph 0048 details calculating vehicle length based on brake line volume using one car per 14 liters to determine length in number of cars).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Antropov such that upon determining the volume of the brake line as taught by Laskawy, the train length and number of train cars can then be calculated using the formula as taught by Antropov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of identification of end valve closure along the length of a brake line as detailed in Antropov (translated paragraphs 0009) and ensure brakes are optimally operated according to the specific tractor-trailer combination.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 18 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches (i) providing a pressure change in a brake line includes applying a pressure pulse in the brake line (Abstract discloses a pressure pulse is provided to the brake control line), and (ii) detecting the pressure change provided in the brake line includes detecting a reflected pressure pulse in the brake line after the pressure pulse has been applied in the brake line (Abstract discloses the brake control line pressure build up is measured subsequent to the provided pulse which examiner understands as equivalent to the reflected pulse).
Claim(s) 2, 4-8, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy as modified by Antropov as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Winkle et al. EP 1288095 A2 (hereinafter Winkle; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches that the at least one brake line of the vehicle train comprises a parking brake line (paragraph 0055 "parking brake").
Laskawy does not explicitly teach that the at least one brake line of the vehicle train comprises a service brake line.
Winkle further teaches that the at least one brake line of the vehicle train comprises a combination of a parking brake line and a service brake line (translated paragraph 0025 discloses a brake network capable of performing a specified braking program; paragraph 0010 discloses a service brake program and a parking brake program).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy can be utilized for emergency and service braking operations as taught by Winkle wherein a signal provided to perform the method of Laskawy can be an operation of a service braking function of Winkle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide flexibility in braking experience, improve safety by including both service and emergency braking operations, and improve accuracy of trailer measurement diagnosis.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Laskawy does not explicitly teach that the at least one brake line of the vehicle train comprises a service brake line associated with the one or more towed vehicles, and the brake trigger signal is provided in response to application of service brakes associated with the one or more towed vehicles.
Winkle teaches that that the at least one brake line of the vehicle train comprises a service brake line associated with the one or more towed vehicles (translated paragraph 0025 discloses a brake network capable of performing a specified braking program; paragraph 0010 discloses a service brake program), and the brake trigger signal is provided in response to application of service brakes associated with the one or more towed vehicles (translated paragraph 0010 discloses performing service braking functions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy can be utilized for service braking operations as taught by Winkle wherein a signal provided to perform the method of Laskawy can be an operation of a service braking function of Winkle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide flexibility in braking experience, improve safety by including both service and emergency braking operations, and improve accuracy of trailer measurement diagnosis.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Claim 5 is a mere combination of the limitations of claims 3 and 4 and thus the same grounds of rejection apply.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches a first pressure sensor for sensing a first pressure change in a first brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train (paragraph 0046 discloses a pressure sensor for detecting pressure) in response to a first brake trigger signal (Abstract discloses pressure is sensed in response to performing the brake pulse).
Laskawy does not teach a second pressure sensor for sensing a second pressure change in a second brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train in response to a second brake trigger signal which is different from the first brake trigger signal.
Winkle teaches a second pressure sensor for sensing a second pressure change in a second brake line of the at least one brake line (paragraph 0026 discloses pressure sensors to detect pressure in the pressure lines at nodes shown on Figure 1) of the vehicle train in response to a second brake trigger signal which is different from the first brake trigger signal (paragraph 0036 discloses detecting pressure signals for each braking function).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy can be split into a plurality of pressure lines including a plurality of pressure sensors to detect line pressure at specific nodes for different braking functions as taught by Winkle since it has been held that merely duplicating known elements without new and unexpected results caused by the duplication involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that constructing a formerly separate element in an integral structural involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 and the court cases cited therein.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches a first pressure sensor for sensing a first pressure change in a first brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train (paragraph 0046 discloses a pressure sensor for detecting pressure) after the first pressure change in the first brake line is provided (Abstract discloses pressure is sensed in response to performing the brake pulse).
Laskawy does not explicitly teach an actuatable first solenoid valve for, when actuated, providing a first pressure change in a first brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train.
Winkle teaches an actuatable first solenoid valve for, when actuated, providing a first pressure change in a first brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train (paragraph 0025 discloses a plurality of solenoid valves acting in a plurality of pressure lines as shown in Figure 1 to provide braking pressure according to a braking program; paragraph 0010 detail a plurality of braking programs that can be performed by the braking system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy is operated to perform braking utilizing the plurality of solenoid valves as taught by Winkle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow precise management of brake fluid/air flow.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Laskawy does not teach an actuatable second solenoid valve for, when actuated, providing a second pressure change in a second brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train; and a second pressure sensor for sensing a second reflected pressure change in the second brake line after the second solenoid valve is actuated to provide the second pressure change in the second brake line.
Winkle further teaches an actuatable second solenoid valve for, when actuated, providing a second pressure change in a second brake line of the at least one brake line of the vehicle train (paragraph 0025 discloses a plurality of solenoid valves acting in a plurality of pressure lines as shown in Figure 1 to provide braking pressure according to a braking program; paragraph 0010 detail a plurality of braking programs that can be performed by the braking system); and
a second pressure sensor for sensing a second reflected pressure change in the second brake line (paragraph 0026 discloses pressure sensors to detect pressure in the pressure lines at nodes shown on Figure 1) after the second solenoid valve is actuated to provide the second pressure change in the second brake line (paragraph 0036 discloses detecting pressure signals for each braking function).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the further teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy is operated to perform braking utilizing solenoid valves as taught by Winkle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow precise management of brake fluid/air flow. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the further teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy can be split into a plurality of pressure lines including a plurality of pressure sensors to detect line pressure at specific nodes for different braking functions as taught by Winkle since it has been held that merely duplicating known elements without new and unexpected results caused by the duplication involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that constructing a formerly separate element in an integral structural involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 and the court cases cited therein.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above.
Laskawy does not explicitly teach at least one actuatable solenoid valve for, when actuated, applying the pressure pulse in the brake line.
Winkle teaches at least one actuatable solenoid valve for, when actuated, applying the pressure pulse in the brake line (paragraph 0025 discloses a plurality of solenoid valves acting in a plurality of pressure lines as shown in Figure 1 to provide braking pressure according to a braking program; paragraph 0010 detail a plurality of braking programs that can be performed by the braking system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the further teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy is operated to perform braking utilizing solenoid valves as taught by Winkle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow precise management of brake fluid/air flow.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches at least one transducer for sensing the reflected pressure pulse in the brake line and providing a signal indicative thereof (paragraph 0046 discloses a pressure sensor for detecting pressure; since the pressure is utilized for brake line volume determination as detailed in the Abstract, some signal must be generated indicative of the sensed pressure).
Laskawy does not explicitly teach at least one actuatable solenoid valve for, when actuated, applying the pressure pulse in the brake line.
Winkle teaches at least one actuatable solenoid valve for, when actuated, applying the pressure pulse in the brake line (paragraph 0025 discloses a plurality of solenoid valves acting in a plurality of pressure lines as shown in Figure 1 to provide braking pressure according to a braking program; paragraph 0010 detail a plurality of braking programs that can be performed by the braking system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the further teachings of Winkle such that the brake line of Laskawy is operated to perform braking utilizing solenoid valves as taught by Winkle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow precise management of brake fluid/air flow.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy as modified by Antropov and Winkle as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Frank et al. US 20020124891 A1 (hereinafter Frank).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Laskawy does not teach an actuatable second solenoid valve for, when actuated, providing a second pressure change in the first brake line, wherein the first solenoid valve acts as a primary solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve acts as a secondary solenoid valve backing up the primary solenoid valve.
Frank teaches an actuatable second solenoid valve for, when actuated, providing a second pressure change in the first brake line, wherein the first solenoid valve acts as a primary solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve acts as a secondary solenoid valve backing up the primary solenoid valve (paragraph 0046 discloses a redundancy valve working with an air admission valve for a braking system; Abstract discloses these are solenoid valves).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Frank such that the solenoid valves of Winkle can include the redundancy valve of Frank. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide additional braking assistance to shorten pressure build up and drop time as detailed in Frank (paragraph 0046).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy as modified by Antropov, Winkle, and Frank as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Biller US 2015027113 A1 (hereinafter Biller).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above.
Laskawy does not teach a second pressure sensor for sensing a second reflected pressure change in the first brake line, wherein the first pressure sensor acts as a primary pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor acts as a secondary pressure sensor backing up the primary pressure sensor.
Biller teaches a second pressure sensor for sensing a second reflected pressure change in the first brake line, wherein the first pressure sensor acts as a primary pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor acts as a secondary pressure sensor backing up the primary pressure sensor (paragraph 0061 discloses a redundantly embodied pressure sensor for detecting pressure; Figure 2 19 at least shows this means two pressure sensors for one braking line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings Biller such that the pressure sensors of Laskawy and Winkle can be redundantly designed as taught by Biller since it has been held that merely duplicating known elements without new and unexpected results caused by the duplication involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy as modified by Antropov and Winkle as applied to claim 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Carritte et al. US 20180354475 A1 (hereinafter Carritte).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 14 as detailed above.
Laskawy does not teach that the at least one actuatable solenoid valve comprises a traction valve of the vehicle train.
Carritte teaches that the at least one actuatable solenoid valve comprises a traction valve of the vehicle train (paragraph 0019 discloses an electronic traction valve to supply braking pressure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Carritte such that the solenoid valves of Winkle can be substituted with electronic traction valves of Carritte. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for pressure to be applied more quickly than when using conventional pneumatic controls as disclosed in Carritte (paragraph 0019).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy as modified by Antropov and Winkle as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Frank and Biller.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above. Claim 17 is a mere combination of the limitations of claims 9 and 10 and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskawy as modified by Antropov as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Carritte.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Laskawy reference teaches all of claim 18 as detailed above. Laskawy further teaches that the method is performed by a controller (Abstract discloses an electronic control unit capable of performing the method) having a memory (paragraph 0011 discloses a data memory of the control unit).
Laskawy does not explicitly teach that the executing one or more programs of instructions which are tangibly embodied in a program storage medium readable by the controller.
Carritte teaches that the method is performed by a controller having a memory executing one or more programs of instructions which are tangibly embodied in a program storage medium readable by the controller (paragraph 0020 "a brake controller 12, which comprises processor 14 that executes, and a memory 16 that stores, computer-executable instructions (e.g., modules, routines, programs, applications, etc.) for performing the various methods").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Laskawy to incorporate the teachings of Carritte such that the method of Laskawy and Antropov can be performed on a controller as taught by Carritte. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure reliable repeatability of the method on a computer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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 and if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Laskawy teaches comparing a reference pressure pulse and the reflected pressure pulse to determine a pressure difference between the reference pressure pulse and the reflected pressure pulse and thereby to enable to brake line volume to be determined (paragraph 0025 discloses comparing measured pressure and a reference value to determine pipe volume).
Laskawy does not teach comparing the applied pressure pulse and the reflected pressure pulse to determine a pressure difference between the applied pressure pulse and the reflected pressure pulse and thereby to enable the combination of towed vehicle length and the number of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor to be determined. None of the prior art of record teaches this comparison in order to determine vehicle length, number of cars, or something similar to enable determination of vehicle length or number of cars indirectly. Therefore, this limitation appears to be novel and non-obvious.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bensch et al. US 20090280959 A1 discloses a service and parking brake system.
Brütt et al. US 20200223414 A1 discloses a braking system with a backup valve.
Dandoy et al. US 20240075911 A1 discloses a service and emergency braking system.
Deno et al. US 4946229 A discloses calculating a braking line volume of a newly configured braking line by measuring braking pressure.
Hart US 6050650 A discloses a braking system with emergency and service braking functions.
Eckert et al. DE 10009324 A1 discloses generating a sequence of pressure changes in a main air line, determining brake line volume based on pressure changes, and determining carriage length based on brake line volume.
Everitt DE 19902777 A1 discloses a controller connected to pressure sensors which are used to determine a main air line running length of a train based on the main line pressure compared to predefined values.
Kobus DE 10112920 A1 discloses comparing a measured pressure with a target pressure to determine train completeness.
Schlosser et al. AU 2015202191 A1 and Schlosser et al. EP 2547568 B1 disclose generating pressure changes in a main air line, determining brake line volume based on detected pressure changes, and determining train length based on main air line volume.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669