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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “202” has been used to designate both actuators (e.g. pgh. 0076 of the PGPub) and a vehicle (see pgh. 0099).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “comprising” rather than “further comprising” despite being a dependent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for the following informalities:
It exceeds 150 words.
It contains implied phrases, e.g. “The invention relates to”, “In one aspect the invention relates to”, “In another aspect the invention relates to “.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) in view of Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses An electronic braking indication system for at least one vehicle, wherein said vehicle comprises at least one electromechanical actuator (128) arranged to apply a braking force to at least one wheel (120) of the vehicle or to at least one braking element associated with at least one wheel (120) of the vehicle or an axle to which at least one wheel (120) is mounted; said electronic braking indication system comprising: at least one force sensor means (108, 110) (see [0027]) arranged to measure a value of said braking force applied by said at least one electromechanical actuator (128); at least one electronic visual signaling device (302), comprising at least one first electronic light source (318) and at least one second electronic light source (314); at least one control means (312) arranged to receive the measured value of said braking force and: a) switch on said first electronic light source (318) when said measured value of the braking force is lower than a first threshold; b) switch on said second electronic light source (314) when said measured value of the braking force is greater than said first threshold (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4). It should be noted, that although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a control logic wherein the light is switched on when the value is greater than said first threshold (2% Brake Force), Yamamoto discloses a plurality of states wherein when the measured value of braking force is greater than a first threshold (every state wherein the brake force is greater than 25%) the second light is switched on. As this is an apparatus claim, the limitations are not treated as method steps and do not require the specific control logic.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle is particularly a railway vehicle.
Schautt teaches an electromechanical brake system of a railway vehicle (see Fig. 1, [0026], [0028]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of an electromechanical brake system of a railway vehicle of Schautt with the electronic brake indication system of Yamamoto in order to improve rail vehicle safety by provide brake information to both pedestrian and other rail vehicles in an accurate and reliable manner (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; [0003], [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto discloses an electronic braking indication system for at least one vehicle, wherein said vehicle comprises at least one electromechanical actuator (128) arranged to apply a braking force to at least one wheel (120) of the vehicle or to at least one braking element associated with at least one wheel (120) of the vehicle or an axle to which at least one wheel (120) is mounted; said electronic braking indication system comprising: at least one force sensor means (108, 110) (see [0027]) arranged to measure a value of said braking force applied by said at least one electromechanical actuator (128); at least one electronic visual signaling device (302), comprising at least one first electronic light source (318) and at least one second electronic light source (314); at least one control means (312) arranged to receive the measured value of said braking force and: a) switch on said first electronic light source (318) when said measured value of the braking force is lower than or equal to a first threshold; b) switch on said second electronic light source (314) when said measured value of the braking force is greater than or equal to a second threshold different from said first threshold (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0043], [0045]).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle is particularly a railway vehicle.
Schautt teaches an electromechanical brake system, with a force sensor, of a railway vehicle (see Fig. 1, [0026], [0028]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of an electromechanical brake system of a railway vehicle of Schautt with the electronic brake indication system of Yamamoto in order to improve rail vehicle safety by provide brake information to both pedestrian and other rail vehicles in an accurate and reliable manner (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; [0003], [0005]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches wherein said second threshold is greater than said first threshold (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; Fig. 4, [0043], [0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches wherein said at least one electronic visual signaling device (302) is arranged to be installed outside the vehicle, such that said at least one first electronic light source (318) and said at least one second electronic light source (314) are visible from outside the vehicle (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; Fig. 4, [0003], [0033]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches wherein said measured value of the braking force is provided by the at least one force sensor means to the at least one control means (10) via a communication channel (14) (see WO 2016015941 A1 [Schautt]; Fig. 1, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches wherein at least one first electronic light source (318) comprises at least one LED and/or the at least one second electronic light source (315) comprises at least one LED (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; Fig. 4, [0040]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches A vehicle comprising: at least one electromechanical actuator (128) arranged to apply a braking force to at least one wheel (120) of the vehicle or to at least one braking element associated with at least one wheel (120) of the vehicle or an axle to which at least one wheel (120) is mounted; an electronic braking indication system according to any one of claims 1 to 14 (see Fig. 1, [0006]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) as modified by Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1) in Claim 5 above, further in view of Summers et. al. (US 20090278401 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches the electronic braking indication system according to claim 5.
Yamamoto modified by Schautt does not explicitly teach wherein the communication channel is a wireless communication channel.
Summers teaches wherein the communication channel with a force sensor in an electromechanical brake system is a wireless communication channel (see Fig. 3, [0030], [0015]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of a wireless communication channel of Summers with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt to reduce the number of required components, increasing available space and reducing manufacturing/assembly complexity.
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers teaches further comprising: a first communication means (32) associated with said at least one force sensor means (42) and arranged to allow transmission/reception of signals on/from said communication channel; a second communication means associated with said at least one control means (18) and arranged to allow transmission/reception of signals on/from said communication channel (see US 20090278401 A1 [Summers]; Fig. 3, [0030], [0051]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) as modified by Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1) and Summers et. al. (US 20090278401 A1) in Claim 7 above, further in view of Werth et. al. (DE 102018122882 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers teaches the electronic braking indication system according to claim 7, wherein wherein said first communication means (32) associated with said at least one force sensor means (42) is arranged to transmit a first signal indicative of the measured value of the braking force (see US 20090278401 A1 [Summers]; Fig. 3, [0030], [0051]).
Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission of a first signal is continuously over time or according to a predetermined transmission period.
Werth teaches an electromechanical brake with a sensor wirelessly transmitting continuously over time or according to a predetermined transmission period (see [0039]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the wireless transmission technique of Werth with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers to further control and optimize the transmission of signals for energy efficiency, reliability, and malfunction detection (see DE 102018122882 A1 [Werth]; [0003-0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers teaches the electronic braking indication system according to claim 7, wherein when the vehicle is traveling at a speed lower than or equal to a predetermined speed, said first communication means (32) associated with said at least one force sensor means (42) is arranged to transmit to the second communication means, via said communication channel, a first signal indicative of the value of the braking force (see US 20090278401 A1 [Summers]; Fig. 3, [0030], [0051]).
Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission of a first signal is continuously over time or according to a predetermined transmission period.
Werth teaches an electromechanical brake with a sensor wirelessly transmitting continuously over time or according to a predetermined transmission period (see [0039]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the wireless transmission technique of Werth with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Summers to further control and optimize the transmission of signals for energy efficiency, reliability, and malfunction detection (see DE 102018122882 A1 [Werth]; [0003-0005]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) as modified by Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Kong (KR 20130126149 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches the electronic braking indication system according to claim 1.
Yamamoto modified by Schautt does not teach wherein the at least one control means is arranged to switch off said at least one first electronic light source and/or said at least one second electronic light source when the vehicle has reached or exceeded a predetermined speed or said at least one control means is arranged to prevent activation of said at least one first electronic light source and/or said at least one second electronic light source when the vehicle has reached or exceeded a predetermined speed.
Kong teaches an electronic braking indication system wherein a control means (24) is arranged to switch off said at least one first electronic light source and/or said at least one second electronic light source when the vehicle has reached or exceeded a predetermined speed (see [0026-0028]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of switching off the light sources after exceeding a predetermined speed of Kong with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt in order to improve vehicle safety and reduce chances for a vehicle collision (see KR 20130126149 A [Kong]; [0013]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) as modified by Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Na (KR 100326708 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches the electronic braking indication system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one visual signaling device (302) comprises respective first electronic light sources (318) and second electronic light sources (314) for electromechanical actuators (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; Fig. 1, Fig. 4).
Yamamoto modified by Schautt does not teach wherein the visual signaling device comprises respective first electronic light sources and second electronic light sources for each electromechanical actuator of the vehicle.
Na teaches a visual signaling device comprises an electronic light source for each actuator of a vehicle (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, to combine the teachings of using wheel specific electronic light sources for visual signaling of Na with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt in order to receive wheel specific information in the case of malfunctions, to improve the ease of maintenance and safety (see KR 100326708 B1 [Na]; Description Paragraph 1). In combination Yamamoto modified by Schautt and Na teaches wherein the at least one visual signaling device comprises respective first electronic light sources and second electronic light sources for each electromechanical actuator of the vehicle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) as modified by Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Bement (US 8928475 B2).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches the electronic braking indication system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic visual signaling device (302) comprises a circuit board on which the at least one first electronic light source (318) and/or the at least one second electronic light source (314) are connected to (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; Fig. 4, [0018], [0026]).
Yamamoto modified by Schautt does not explicitly teach wherein the circuit board has electronic light sources installed on them.
Bement teaches an electronic brake indication system wherein an electronic visual signaling device (105) comprises a circuit board (508) on which the at least one first electronic light source (504) and/or the at least one second electronic light source (504) are installed (see Fig. 5, 6: 46-60).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the installing the light sources at the circuit board of Bement with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt in order reduce the indication systems size and reduce the latency of signal transmission from the circuit board to the light sources.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 20080133072 A1) as modified by Schautt et. al. (WO 2016015941 A1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Grgic (US 20140097951 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamamoto modified by Schautt teaches The electronic braking indication system according to claim 1, comprising a power source arranged to supply electrical energy to the at least one electronic visual signaling device (302), the at least one first electronic light source (318) and the at least one second electronic light source (314), or wherein said electronic visual signaling device (302), the at least one first electronic light source (318) and the at least one second electronic light source (314) are arranged to receive electrical energy from the power source (see US 20080133072 A1 [Yamamoto]; Fig. 4, [0046]).
Yamamoto modified by Schautt does not explicitly teach wherein the power source is a battery.
Grgic teaches a braking indication system wherein electronic light sources are arranged to receive power from a battery (16), which powers the vehicle (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of utilizing a battery of the vehicle as a power source of Grgic with the electronic braking indication system of Yamamoto modified by Schautt in order to utilize pre-existing resources in the vehicle, reducing the need for additional components and specifically more cumbersome power supplies.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar (US 20170334415 A1) discloses a rail vehicle with a brake indication system and corresponding control logic.
Scherenberg (US 3710315 A) discloses a brake indication system and corresponding control logic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights