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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitations
a first brake control unit configured to provide braking functions and to output a force actuating variable; (claim 1)
a first actuator control unit configured to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the force actuating variable and to output an actuating variable (claim 1)
a second actuator control unit configured specified to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the force actuating variable and to output an actuating variable (claim 1)
a braking force unit configured to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the actuating variable; (claim 1)
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder
a first brake control unit (claim 1)
a first actuator control unit (claim 1)
a second actuator control unit (claim 1)
a braking force unit (claim 1)
Coupled with functional language
configured to provide braking functions and to output a force actuating variable; (claim 1)
configured to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the force actuating variable and to output an actuating variable (claim 1)
configured specified to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the force actuating variable and to output an actuating variable (claim 1)
configured to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the actuating variable; (claim 1)
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-22 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
324 figure 4 paragraph 188
350 figure 4 paragraph 200
352 figure 4 paragraph 201
358 figure 4 paragraph 193
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 el seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations on line 9 “output a force actuating variable” is repeated and unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as “output a 2nd force actuating variable”
In line 11, limitations “output an actuating variable” is repeated and unclear.” For the purposed of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as “output a 2nd actuating variable”
In line 14, limitations “based on the actuating variable” is unclear especially from the repeated actuating variable above. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as “based on either actuating variable”
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “the safety functions” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wilson (CN104936815).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson teaches A brake system for a rail vehicle, the brake system comprising:
a brake controller (33 figure 1 e brake system) having a first brake control unit (30 figure 1 page 12 paragraph 6) configured to provide braking functions and to output a force actuating variable;
a first actuator control unit (26 figure 1 and 2 paragraph 6 first level brake ECU) configured to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the force actuating variable and to output an actuating variable; (page 14 paragraph 1 and 2 first stage brake control unit from service brakes; paragraph 2 brake through permanent motor; examiner interprets friction to slow train. Friction is required to change acceleration of train F=ma OR page 7 paragraph 1-4 mechanical brake can be used too)
an actuator (22 figure 2) having which has a second brake control unit configured to provide braking functions and to output a 2nd force actuating variable; (22 figure 2 page 14 paragraph 4 parking brake)
a second actuator control unit (32 figure 2) configured specified to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on the force actuating variable and to output an 2nd actuating variable; (page 15 paragraph 2 in case of 26 failure second connection 32 take over)
a braking force unit (50 diode) configured to provide functions for generating a frictional braking force based on either actuating variable; (page 13 paragraph 2 and 3 and page 15 paragraph 2 diode 50 operates in passive rectifier mode for 2nd stage emergency braking)
a first braking path (26 brake path page 6 paragraph 7 to page 7 paragraph 1-4) which includes functions that are active between at least one control input of the brake system and the generation of braking force; (page 13 paragraph 2 and 3 interconnected)
and a second braking path (32 brake path page 6 paragraph 7 to page 7 paragraph 1-4) which includes functions that are active between at least one control input of the brake system, or when predetermined brake system state variables are present, and the generation of braking force. (page 13 paragraph 2 and 3 interconnected).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson teaches wherein the first braking path (26) is configured to provide braking functions with low safety integrity and the second braking path (32) is configured to provide braking functions with high safety integrity, and wherein braking functions with high safety integrity have a higher safety integrity level than braking functions with low safety integrity. (page 15 paragraph 2 and 3 brake efficiency of 2nd stage has higher integrity).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson teaches further comprising a first group of shared functional parts, which are part of the first braking path and part of the second braking path and are configured to generate a frictional force such that the rail vehicle is decelerated. (page 13 paragraph 2 and 3 and page 15 paragraph 2 and 3 page 14 paragraph 2 first brake path).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson teaches wherein the brake controller is configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path or the second braking path and wherein the actuator (22 figure 2) is configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path (26 path) or the second braking path (32 path).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson teaches wherein:
the first brake control unit (30) and the second brake control unit (22) are configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path (26) or the second braking path (32);
the first actuator control unit (26) and the second actuator control unit (32) are configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path or the second braking path; and
the braking force unit is configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path or the second braking path. (page 13 paragraph 2 and 3 interconnected).
Regarding claim 6, Wilson teaches wherein:
the first brake control unit (30) and the first actuator (26) control unit are configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path; (26 path)
the second brake control unit (22) and the second actuator (32) control unit are configured to provide braking functions of the second braking path; and (32 path)
the braking force unit is configured specified to provide braking functions of the first braking path and the second braking path. (page 13 paragraph 2 and 3 interconnected).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson teaches wherein:
the first brake control unit is configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path or the second braking path; (see claim 5)
the first actuator control unit is configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path;
the second brake control unit and the second actuator control unit are configured to provide braking functions of the second braking path; and
the braking force unit is configured to provide braking functions of the first braking path and the second braking path. (see claim 6)
Regarding claim 8, Wilson teaches further comprising a power supply unit (page 13 paragraph 1 52 third rail) which is configured to supply the components of the brake system with power, in particular electrical energy, for their operation.
Regarding claim 9, Wilson teaches wherein one of the first brake control unit, the second brake control unit, the first actuator control unit, the second actuator control unit, the power supply unit or the braking force unit is configured to receive a switching signal and, upon receiving the switching signal and response thereto, to switch from the first braking path to the second braking path, or to switch from the second braking path to the first braking path. (page 15 paragraph 2 and 26 failure emergency backup)
Regarding claim 10, Wilson teaches wherein:
one of the first brake control unit, the second brake control unit, the first actuator control unit, the second actuator control unit, the power supply unit or the braking force unit has a switching unit and is configured specified to determine a switching state and to output a switching signal in response to determination of a switching state (page 15 paragraph 2 and 26 failure emergency backup).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson teaches wherein the brake system is configured to perform a safety function. (page 15 paragraph 2 and 26 failure emergency backup)
Regarding claim 12, Wilson teaches wherein a safety function is one from the group of safety functions consisting of braking path monitor, actuator monitor, supply monitor, decision maker and data storage function. (page 15 paragraph 2 and 26 failure emergency backup).
Regarding claim 13, Wilson teaches wherein the power supply unit is configured to perform a safety function of a supply monitor
and the second brake control unit is configured to perform safety functions of a braking path monitor, actuator monitor, data storage function and decision maker. (see claim 11 and 12)
Regarding claim 14, Wilson teaches wherein the power supply unit is configured to perform the safety function of the supply monitor, the first brake control unit is configured to perform the safety function of the braking path monitor and actuator monitor, and
the second brake control unit is configured specified to perform the safety functions of the decision maker and data storage function. (page 15 paragraph 2 and 26 failure emergency backup)
Regarding claim 15, Wilson teaches wherein the braking force unit is configured to receive an actuating variable and to control the group of functional parts such a way that the rail vehicle is decelerated. (page 15 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson teaches wherein brake controller or the actuator has a power supply unit, and/or an internal power supply unit. (page 15 paragraph 1 and 52 third rail).
Regarding claim 17-24, see the rejection to claim 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 12 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747