DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 8, 19, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21-23 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output an . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶44). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output an . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output an electric brake force signal. As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 13-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin (US 2018/0209494 A1) hereinafter Cottin and Iordanidis et al. (US 2015/0151728 A1) hereinafter Iordanidis.
Claim 1:
Cottin discloses a brake system for a rail vehicle (100), which brake system comprises a brake unit (200) configured to receive a brake command (cmdB) and response thereto execute a brake action, the brake unit (200) [Figs. 1-3, Item 18] comprising: a rotatable member (110) [20, 22, 24] being mechanically linked to at least one wheel (105) of the rail vehicle (100) [8, 10, 12], first and second pressing members (211, 212) configured to move relative to the rotatable member (110) to execute the brake action [38, 40, 42], a gear assembly (220) arranged to operate mechanically on the first and second pressing members (211; 212) [32, 34, 36].
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose a brake actuator (120) configured to produce an electric brake-force signal (BF) in response to the brake command (cmdB), an electric motor (230) configured to act on the gear assembly (220) in response to the electric brake-force signal (BF), wherein the brake actuator (120) comprises a processing unit (125) configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) based on the brake command (cmd.sub.B), the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a force signal (F) reflecting the magnitude of a force applied by the first and second pressing members (211; 212) on the rotatable member (110).
However, Iordanidis does disclose a brake actuator (120) configured to produce an electric brake-force signal (BF) in response to the brake command (cmdB), [¶38] an electric motor (230) configured to act on the gear assembly (220) in response to the electric brake-force signal (BF), wherein the brake actuator (120) comprises a processing unit (125) configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) based on the brake command (cmd.sub.B), [¶¶39-40] the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a force signal (F) reflecting the magnitude of a force applied by the first and second pressing members (211; 212) on the rotatable member (110). [¶57]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin with the electro-mechanical actuation of Iordanidis to improve the responsiveness and control of the brakes.
Claim 4:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a first speed signal (rpm) representing a rotational speed of the at least one wheel (105).
However, Iordanidis does disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a first speed signal (rpm) representing a rotational speed of the at least one wheel (105). [¶¶57-59]
Claim 7:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of at least one second speed signal (rpm.sub.x) representing a rotational speed of at least one additional wheel of the rail vehicle (100), which at least one additional wheel is different from the at least one wheel (105).
However, Iordanidis does disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of at least one second speed signal (rpm.sub.x) representing a rotational speed of at least one additional wheel of the rail vehicle (100), which at least one additional wheel is different from the at least one wheel (105). [¶¶57-59]
Claim 13:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the brake command (cmd.sub.B) is represented by an analog signal.
However, Iordanidis does disclose wherein the brake command (cmd.sub.B) is represented by an analog signal. [¶37]
Claim 14:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose comprising a communication bus (150) configured to forward the brake command (cmd.sub.B) to the brake actuator (120).
However, Iordanidis does disclose comprising a communication bus (150) configured to forward the brake command (cmd.sub.B) to the brake actuator (120). [¶37]
Claim 15:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 14.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the brake actuator (120) is configured to send a confirmation message (ACK.sub.B) on the communication bus (150) after having executed the brake action.
However, Iordanidis does disclose wherein the brake actuator (120) is configured to send a confirmation message (ACK.sub.B) on the communication bus (150) after having executed the brake action. [¶51]
Claim 18:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin also discloses wherein the gear assembly (220) and the electric motor (230) are arranged to execute the brake action such that the first and second pressing members (211; 212) either move towards the rotatable member (110) or away from the rotatable member (110) depending on a state of the brake command (cmd.sub.B) [¶19].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin an Iordanidis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siddappa et al. (US 2010/0235022 A1) hereinafter Siddappa.
Claim 2:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising a first accelerometer (125) configured to produce at least one vector signal (VS) representing an acceleration (a.sub.X, a.sub.Y, a.sub.Z, a.sub.R, a.sub.P, a.sub.W) in at least one dimension of a railroad car in which the brake actuator (120) is comprised, which at least one vector signal (VS) expresses movement of said railroad car, and the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of the at least one vector signal (VS).
However, Siddappa does disclose further comprising a first accelerometer (125) configured to produce at least one vector signal (VS) representing an acceleration (a.sub.X, a.sub.Y, a.sub.Z, a.sub.R, a.sub.P, a.sub.W) in at least one dimension of a railroad car in which the brake actuator (120) is comprised, which at least one vector signal (VS) expresses movement of said railroad car, and the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of the at least one vector signal (VS). [¶¶66, 80-85]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin and Iordanidis with the accelerometer of Siddappa to accurately control the trains movement based on actual measurements and feedback thus improving accuracy.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin an Iordanidis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Leon (US 2015/0275991 A1) hereinafter De Leon.
Claim 3:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the brake actuator (120) comprises the first accelerometer (125).
However, De Leon does disclose wherein the brake actuator (120) comprises the first accelerometer (125). [¶69]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin and Iordanidis with the accelerometer of De Leon to provide a packaging location near where relevant data needs to be collected.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin an Iordanidis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Docker et al. (US 2018/0370538 A1) hereinafter Docker.
Claim 5:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising a rotational speed sensor (115, 135) configured to produce the first speed signal (rpm).
However, Docker does disclose further comprising a rotational speed sensor (115, 135) configured to produce the first speed signal (rpm). [¶105]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin and Iordanidis with the rotational speed sensor of Docker to use a known means for determining a speed signal.
Claim 6:
Cottin, Iordanidis, and Docker as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 5.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the rotational speed sensor comprises a second accelerometer (135) eccentrically arranged relative to a rotation axis of the at least one wheel (105), and the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the first speed signal (rpm) based on a set of acceleration parameters expressing movements of the second accelerometer (135) in a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis.
However, Docker does disclose wherein the rotational speed sensor comprises a second accelerometer (135) eccentrically arranged relative to a rotation axis of the at least one wheel (105), and the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the first speed signal (rpm) based on a set of acceleration parameters expressing movements of the second accelerometer (135) in a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis. [¶105]
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin an Iordanidis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fraser (US 2015/0100218 A1) hereinafter Fraser.
Claim 9:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the gear assembly (220) comprises a load-cell sensor (225) configured to produce the force signal (F).
However, Fraser does disclose wherein the gear assembly (220) comprises a load-cell sensor (225) configured to produce the force signal (F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin and Iordanidis with the sensor of Fraser to provide a known sensor type that can determine pressure/force.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin an Iordanidis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirai et al. (US 6,305,506 B1) hereinafter Shirai.
Claim 10:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a position signal (P) expressing a position interrelationship between the first and second pressing members (211; 212).
However, Shirai does disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a position signal (P) expressing a position interrelationship between the first and second pressing members (211; 212). [col. 20, line 66 to col 21, line 16]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin and Iordanidis with the position signal calculation of Shirai to determine brake force based on known information.
Claim 11:
Cottin, Iordanidis, and Shirai as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose comprising a drivetrain arrangement (235) interconnecting the electric motor (230) and the gear assembly (220), which drivetrain arrangement (235) comprises a position sensor configured to produce the position signal (P).
However, Shirai does disclose comprising a drivetrain arrangement (235) interconnecting the electric motor (230) and the gear assembly (220), which drivetrain arrangement (235) comprises a position sensor configured to produce the position signal (P). [col. 20, line 66 to col 21, line 16]
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin an Iordanidis as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of DeTurckheim (EP 2824585 A1) hereinafter DeTurckheim.
Claim 16:
Cottin and Iordanidis, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 14.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the communication bus (150) is configured to implement a non-hierarchical communication structure.
However, DeTurckheim does disclose wherein the communication bus (150) is configured to implement a non-hierarchical communication structure. [¶41]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin and Iordanidis with the communication BUS of DeTurckheim to make the system more robust by decentralizing and reducing the dependency on individual components.
Claim 17:
Cottin, Iordanidis, and DeTurckheim as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 16.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the communication bus (150) is configured to exchange data and control signals on the Controller-Area-Network format.
However, DeTurckheim does disclose wherein the communication bus (150) is configured to exchange data and control signals on the Controller-Area-Network format. [¶41]
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin, Iordanidis, and Shirai as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Baek (KR 20020084496 A) hereinafter Baek.
Claim 12:
Cottin, Iordanidis, and Shirai as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: at least one of the first and second pressing members (211; 212) comprises at least one ultrasonic sensor (401, 402) configured to emit ultrasound energy (E.sub.US) and produce at least one ranging signal (S.sub.R1, S.sub.R2) based on reflections of the emitted ultrasound energy (E.sub.US) against the rotatable member (110); and the position sensor is configured to produce the position signal (P) based on the at least one ranging signal (S.sub.R1, S.sub.R2).
However, Baek does disclose wherein: at least one of the first and second pressing members (211; 212) comprises at least one ultrasonic sensor (401, 402) configured to emit ultrasound energy (E.sub.US) and produce at least one ranging signal (S.sub.R1, S.sub.R2) based on reflections of the emitted ultrasound energy (E.sub.US) against the rotatable member (110); and the position sensor is configured to produce the position signal (P) based on the at least one ranging signal (S.sub.R1, S.sub.R2). [claims 1-2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin, Iordanidis, and Shirai with the ranging signal of Baek to provide a known means of measuring the position of the brake pads.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin, Iordanidis, and Siddappa as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of De Leon (US 2015/0275991 A1) hereinafter De Leon.
Claim 21:
Cottin, Iordanidis, and Siddappa as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the brake actuator (120) comprises the first accelerometer (125).
However, De Leon does disclose wherein the brake actuator (120) comprises the first accelerometer (125). [¶69]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin, Iordanidis, and Siddappa with the accelerometer of De Leon to provide a packaging location near where relevant data needs to be collected.
Claim 22:
Cottin, Iordanidis, Siddappa, and DeLeon as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a first speed signal (rpm) representing a rotational speed of the at least one wheel (105).
However, De Leon does disclose wherein the processing unit (125) is configured to produce the electric brake-force signal (BF) on the further basis of a first speed signal (rpm) representing a rotational speed of the at least one wheel (105). [¶¶57-59]
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottin, Iordanidis, Siddappa, and DeLeon as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Docker.
Claim 23:
Cottin, Iordanidis, Siddappa, and DeLeon as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 22.
Cottin doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising a rotational speed sensor (115, 135) configured to produce the first speed signal (rpm).
However, Docker does disclose further comprising a rotational speed sensor (115, 135) configured to produce the first speed signal (rpm). [¶105]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake system of Cottin, Iordanidis, Siddappa, and DeLeon with the rotational speed sensor of Docker to use a known means for determining a speed signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747