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 11-22 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Neither Foerster or Zwilling teaches a converter for driving the drive motor (Page 4). Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an inverter is a type of converter. A converter is any type of device that changes electrical power from one form to another. While the Examiner agrees that an inverter changes DC to AC power and that some converters change AC to DC, the specific type of equipment that exclusively changes power to AC to DC would be a rectifier.
In Foerster, both controllers perform driving and braking functions (Page 4). The argument is moot as Zwilling is relied upon to teach the functions of the controllers. Applicant goes on to suggest in pages 5-6 that Zwilling does not disclose a separate algorithm, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the first and second emergency brake modes along with their initiation criteria function as two separate algorithms. Further, on page 4 the Applicant appears to suggest that Zwilling’s “second algorithm is exclusively for braking.” However, it should be noted that the claim language is actually, “second control algorithm has functions exclusively for braking,” which is different in scope than what is argued as actuating a friction brake would be an example of a function exclusively for braking.
Incorporating the teachings of Zwilling into Foerster changes the principle operations of the Foerster taught invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foerster is relied upon merely to teach the physical structure and components and therefore a modification incorporating the changes of Zwilling would not change the principle of how the structure operates.
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) 11-15 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foerster et al. (US 9,533,668 B2) hereinafter Foerster and Zwilling et al. (DE 102017106119 A1) hereinafter Zwilling.
Claim 11:
Foerster discloses a method for controlling an electrodynamic brake apparatus [Item 24; col. 9, lines 46-64] of a rail vehicle [10], the electrodynamic brake apparatus of the rail vehicle having at least one electric drive motor [18], a converter electrically connected to the electric drive motor and having a plurality of power semiconductor switches [20, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a converter would operate via power semiconductor switches], and a controller [22] controlling the plurality of power semiconductor switches, as parts of a drive system of the rail vehicle [col. 9, lines 11-20].
Foerster doesn’t explicitly disclose which comprises the steps of: controlling the power semiconductor switches of the converter according to a first control algorithm of the controller in an event of emergency braking, for generating a target braking torque, wherein the first control algorithm has functions for both driving and braking the drive system; determining and comparing an actual braking torque generated by the electrodynamic brake apparatus with the target braking torque during a braking operation; and controlling the power semiconductor switches of the converter by means of a second control algorithm of the controller on a basis of the comparison, wherein the second control algorithm has functions exclusively for braking.
However Zwilling does disclose which comprises the steps of: controlling the power semiconductor switches of the converter according to a first control algorithm of the controller in an event of emergency braking, for generating a target braking torque, wherein the first control algorithm has functions for both driving and braking the drive system; [Fig. 2, Step S12, "First Emergency Braking Mode"] determining and comparing an actual braking torque generated by the electrodynamic brake apparatus with the target braking torque during a braking operation; and controlling the power semiconductor switches of the converter by means of a second control algorithm of the controller on a basis of the comparison, wherein the second control algorithm has functions exclusively for braking. [Fig. 2, Step S16, "Aist < Asoll", Step S22, "Second Emergency Braking Mode"]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rail vehicle braking of Foerster with the algorithm of Zwilling to improve emergency braking thus increasing safety.
Claim 12:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the second control algorithm has a narrower functional scope than the first control algorithm in respect of a braking function.
However, Zwilling does disclose wherein the second control algorithm has a narrower functional scope than the first control algorithm in respect of a braking function. [Fig. 2, Timer is not present in Second Emergency Brake Mode]
Claim 13:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein in the comparing step, performing the sub-step of: comparing the actual braking torque with a threshold value that is dependent on the target braking torque, and, if the actual braking torque is less than the threshold value, the power semiconductor switches of the converter are controlled by means of the second control algorithm.
However, Zwilling does disclose wherein in the comparing step, performing the sub-step of: comparing the actual braking torque with a threshold value that is dependent on the target braking torque, and, if the actual braking torque is less than the threshold value, the power semiconductor switches of the converter are controlled by means of the second control algorithm. [Fig. 2; ¶47, a predefined braking effect limit value A_soll]
Claim 14:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster doesn’t explicitly disclose which further comprises controlling the power semiconductor switches of the converter by means of the second control algorithm of the controller until the emergency braking is complete.
However, Zwilling does disclose which further comprises controlling the power semiconductor switches of the converter by means of the second control algorithm of the controller until the emergency braking is complete. [Fig. 2, Step S24, "End of Emergency Braking"]
Claim 15:
Foerster discloses an electric drive system of a rail vehicle [10], the electric drive system comprising: at least one electrodynamic brake apparatus [Item 24; col. 9, lines 46-64] containing at least one electric drive motor [18], a converter being electrically connected to said at least one electric drive motor and having a plurality of power semiconductor switches [20, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a converter would operate via power semiconductor switches], and a controller [22] controlling said plurality of power semiconductor switches [col. 9, lines 11-20]
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and therefore said at least one electrodynamic brake apparatus embodied to carry out the method according to claim 11 [see the rejection of claim 11 above].
Claim 17:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster also discloses wherein said converter is a pulse-controlled inverter [20, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a converter would be pulse-controlled].
Claim 18:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster also discloses wherein said at least one electrodynamic brake apparatus further has a supervisory controller for said controller, wherein said supervisory controller is embodied to specify the target braking torque to said controller and/or to perform a comparison of the actual braking torque with the target braking torque [col. 10, lines 22-32].
Claim 19:
Foerster discloses a rail vehicle [10], comprising: at least one electrodynamic brake apparatus [Item 24; col. 9, lines 46-64]
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and therefore embodied for carrying out the method according to claim 11 [see the rejection of claim 11 above].
Claim 20:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster also discloses wherein the rail vehicle is a high-speed multiple unit [Fig. 1, 10].
Claim 21:
Foerster discloses a rail vehicle [10], comprising: an electric drive system, containing: at least one electrodynamic brake apparatus [Item 24; col. 9, lines 46-64] containing at least one electric drive motor [18], a converter being electrically connected to said at least one electric drive motor and having a plurality of power semiconductor switches [20, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a converter would operate via power semiconductor switches], and a controller [22] controlling said plurality of power semiconductor switches [col. 9, lines 11-20].
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and therefore said at least one electrodynamic brake apparatus embodied to carry out the method according to claim 11 [see the rejection of claim 11 above].
Claim 22:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster also discloses wherein the rail vehicle is a high-speed multiple unit [Fig. 1, 10].
Claim(s) 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foerster and Zwilling as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. (US 2010/0109586 A1) hereinafter Matsui.
Claim 16:
Foerster and Zwilling, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 11.
Foerster doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said at least one electric drive motor is a permanent magnet-excited three-phase synchronous motor.
However, Matsui discloses wherein said at least one electric drive motor is a permanent magnet-excited three-phase synchronous motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rail vehicle braking of Foerster and Zwilling with the motor of Matsui to provide a known source of torque and regeneration for rail based applications.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights