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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed 01/16/2026 comprises arguments against the rejections of record only. No amendment was filed.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicants argument “The Specification provides guidance to a person of skill in the art for estimating the fraction of the overall weight (mtot). For example, page 8, line 6 - page 10, line 32, as well as Figs. 2, 3, and 5, show a person of skill in the art how to estimate the fraction of the overall weight per wheel axle through mathematical equations and detailed figures. As another example, page 14, line 25 - page 15 line 9 of the Specification as filed provides guidance on how to estimate the respective fraction of the overall weight. Additionally, Fig. 6 shows that the speed of the axle can be used to estimate the respective fraction of the overall weight of that axle.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above citation merely provides a general overview of applicant’s invention including written description support for determining coefficient(s) of friction between the axle wheels of the rail vehicle and the rails and overall weight (mtot) of the rail vehicle. However, neither the above argument(s), originally filed claims, nor originally filed disclosure provides adequate written guidance regarding how the respective fractions m1, m2, ….mn of weight carried by each of the wheel axles are determined “based thereon”.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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.
Claim 1 recites in-part: “repeat steps (a) to (c) for each of said wheel axles, and based thereon estimate a respective fraction (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles.”.
Claim 7 recites in-part: “repeating steps (a) to (c) for each of said wheel axles, and based thereon estimating a respective fraction (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles.”.
MPEP2163.02 states “An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)”.
MPEP2163.05(V) states “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed.”.
In this instance, Applicant’s specification states “The present invention relates generally to safety arrangements for rail vehicle braking systems. Especially, the invention relates to a controller according to the preamble of claim 1 for estimating individual axle weights of a rail vehicle to enable enhanced braking of the rail vehicle.” (Page 1 lines 5-9). The specification discloses the manner in which a wheel axle specific coefficient of friction Uk may be determined (Page 10 lines 15-20) based in part on specific axle wheel speeds, overall weight of the rail vehicle mtot, applied brake force to the specific axle wheels, etc. However, subsequent recitations (e.g. Page 16, line 1 through Page 17 line 6) of the manner in which applicant purportedly estimates the respective fractions m1, m2, mn of the overall mtot carried by each of the axles, merely recite the desired result without sufficiently identifying how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Additionally, in contrast to the disclosed equations for estimation of the total mass of the rail vehicle mtot (Page 8 lines 25-30), and the disclosed equation for estimation of a wheel axle specific coefficient of friction Uk (Page 10 lines 15-20); there are no formulas or original written disclosure with respect to determination of the respective fractions (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles.
As a result, 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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-13 depend from Claims 1 and 7 respectively, but fail to resolve the deficiency with respect to satisfying the written description requirement.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Applicant notes that the Office Action fails to evaluate the claims in accordance with the guidance provided by the Office. For example, the Office Action fails to consider each claim feature in combination with the claim as a whole, in evaluating the claims to determine whether they are directed to patentable subject matter. Instead, the Office Action generally discusses parts of claim features separately, without addressing the claim as a whole. For example, the Office Action designates limitations A-G of claim 1 and then asserts that limitations B, E, F, and G recite "mental processes." This is an incorrect analysis. Every claim must be evaluated at each step and the features of the claims considered in combination. When considering the integrated features of the claims, it is clear that the claims do not cover to a mere abstract idea. Rather, they describe a specific two-stage calibration method to accurately determine the weight distribution across a rail vehicle's axles.”, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason(s) previously indicated in the office action mailed 01/13/26 (pages 4-17). Applicant’s argument comprises a general allegation that the claimed subject matter is eligible without clearly and particularly pointing out supposed error(s) in the rejection analysis of record.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Additionally, the Office Action's interpretation of the claim limitations is also incorrect and do not recite concepts that can be performed by a human. Clearly, the measuring the power and speed change of a rail vehicle during an acceleration and a controlled braking test on each axle individually are processes that cannot be performed by a human and, thus, do not constitute mental processes or mere abstract ideas.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the word “measuring” does not appear in the claims. Additionally, with respect to the terms “power and speed”; as previously indicated (pages 8-9 office action filed 01/13/2026), these limitation(s) () constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Thus, even if the Office Action considers the claims to recite elements from one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas - which Applicant does not concede - the claims as a whole are not "directed to" an abstract idea because the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into "a practical application" of that idea. As discussed in the October 2019 Update, "the limitations containing the judicial exception, as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application." Each claim limitations may not be evaluated in a vacuum. October 2019 Update at p. 12. However, this is exactly the flawed analysis described in the Office Action.”; Examiner Respectfully disagrees for the reason(s) previously indicated in the office action mailed 01/13/26 (pages 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 16). Applicant’s argument comprises a general allegation that the claimed subject matter is eligible without clearly and particularly pointing out supposed error(s) in the rejection analysis of record.
Regarding Applicant’s Argument “The core of the present invention is a specific two-stage calibration method to accurately determine the weight distribution across a rail vehicle's axles…. This specific, sequential process is not taught or suggested by the combination of Kumar and Herden.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an ordered specific two-stage sequential process) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument “The primary purposes of the cited references are fundamentally different from that of the present invention.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both references are in the field of the inventors endeavor (rail vehicles) and are specifically directed towards rail vehicle control (e.g. wheel/axle braking).
Regarding Applicant’s argument “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine these disparate teachings to arrive at the claimed invention” and : There is no teaching or suggestion in either reference to use a braking test not for real-time compensation (as in Herden), but for a calibration procedure to determine weight fractions based on a previously determined total vehicle weight.”; Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as previously indicated (pages 21-24) “Kumar teaches all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Kumar discloses determining wheel slip based on individual wheel speeds compared to overall vehicle speed in order to determine an updated parameter reflecting an adhesion value and/or friction coefficient (¶0043) between each set of wheels and the corresponding rails. However, Kumar does not explicitly recite determining wheel slip based on a wheel speed difference exceeding a threshold value.
Therefore Kumar does not explitly disclose:
,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value,…(d) determine the friction coefficient.
Herden discloses methods and apparatus configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip.
Specifically, “during braking the brake actuators on at least two selected axles of the rail vehicle train are subjected, by means of actuation by the brake control unit, to a braking pressure which exceeds a braking pressure corresponding to the braking request of the braking operation. More than two axles, in particular all the braked axles, of the rail vehicle train may be selected. (19) In this context, the wheel rotational speeds which are measured by the wheel rotational speed sensors of the selected axles may make available a variable representing the maximum transmittable frictional force in each case between the wheel sets of the selected axles and the rail. Alternatively, each variable which represents the maximum transmittable braking frictional force in each case between the wheels of the selected axles and the rail, such as for example the wheel circumferential acceleration, the braking force, the braking torque or the braking pressure, can be used. (20) For example, an average wheel rotational speed is formed from the wheel rotational speeds of the selected axles, and the individual wheel rotational speeds are compared with this average wheel rotational speed, wherein a significantly smaller individual wheel rotational speed indicates a high braking slip of the respective wheel set and therefore frictional engagement in the region of the sliding friction and a somewhat higher wheel rotational speed or an individual wheel rotational speed corresponding to the average wheel rotational speed indicates a low brake slip and therefore frictional engagement in the region of the static friction. Frictional engagement in the region of the sliding friction indicates a relatively low transmittable frictional force, and frictional engagement in the region of the static friction indicates a relatively high frictional force of the axle in question. In this case, the wheel rotational speeds of the selected axles are transferred to the electronic brake control unit for evaluation. (21) Within the brake control unit there is a memory for storing a list in which the selected axles are then assigned to their respectively transmittable frictional force (high or low). (22) The evaluation logic within the brake control unit is designed to identify the list of the axles with brake slip at which, while braking is taking place, brake slip which exceeds a predefined degree occurs and therefore the antislip regulation has to be activated.” (See Col. 4 line 22-63)
Therefore Herden discloses methods and apparatus configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip including wherein ,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value (See Col. 4 line 22-63) in order that a reduction in the braking force, performed by the antislip regulation, at axles with locking brakes, which leads to a situation in which the desired deceleration of the rail vehicle or rail vehicle train is not achieved and the braking distance is lengthened, is avoided. (Col. 1 line 48-53)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the system configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip of Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Herden to include ,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value to in order that a reduction in the braking force, performed by the antislip regulation, at axles with locking brakes, which leads to a situation in which the desired deceleration of the rail vehicle or rail vehicle train is not achieved and the braking distance is lengthened, is avoided. (Col. 1 line 48-53)
Regarding Applicant’s Argument “The Office Action asserts that Kumar teaches estimating the overall weight (Office Action, p. 19, citing Kumar [0040]). However, Kumar merely states that total weight can be used to determine how much weight is on a wheel; it does not teach or suggest the claimed method of obtaining power and speed signals during acceleration to estimate said overall weight.”; Examiner Respectfully Disagrees. As previously indicated, ¶0040 further discloses the controller taking into account dynamic forces (vehicle speed, acceleration, etc.) to determine total vehicle weight while transiting a route.
Regarding Applicants arguments “Additionally, there are a number of incorrect assertions the Office Action makes in regards to Kumar. First, Kumar discloses determination of the weight on each wheel, not on the axle weight as recited in the claims.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously indicated, ¶0017 states “ the wheels of the vehicle are mechanically coupled to axles 108. Each axle may mechanically couple to multiple wheels that are spaced apart along a length of the axle to define a respective wheelset 110”. Additionally, ¶0039 “The force exerted on the route can represent an amount of weight that is applied on the route by the corresponding wheel or wheelset”)
Second, Kumar discloses the controller can allocate power, not that it is configured to obtain a power signal as recited in the claims.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. A controller allocating power to the wheelsets necessarily includes determining and/or obtaining the determined power amount prior to distribution (allocation).
Third, Kumar discloses the total weight of the vehicle is determined by static weight, cargo weight, fuel level, and position of the wheel and does not teach or suggest using a speed signal in estimating an overall weight as recited in the claims.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously indicated, ¶0040 further discloses the controller taking into account dynamic forces (vehicle speed, acceleration, etc.) to determine total vehicle weight while transiting a route.
Fourth, there is no disclosure in Kumar to determine repeatedly during production of the brake control signal, a difference in rotational speed of the wheel axles as recited in the claims.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously indicated Kumar discloses “(¶0057; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping based on rotational wheel speed and vehicle speed; ¶0023 “the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed.”. See also at least ¶0057 “during travel of the vehicle along the route, the vehicle control system may periodically update the available adhesion values of the wheels by challenging one or more of the wheels until slip occurs” and ¶0065 “At 410, the torque settings for the wheels are communicated to a propulsion subsystem of the vehicle for driving rotation of the corresponding wheels according to the torque settings during a propulsion mode and/or a braking mode of the vehicle.”)
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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.
Claim 1 recites in-part: “repeat steps (a) to (c) for each of said wheel axles, and based thereon estimate a respective fraction (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles.”.
Claim 7 recites in-part: “repeating steps (a) to (c) for each of said wheel axles, and based thereon estimating a respective fraction (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles.”.
MPEP2163.02 states “An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)”.
MPEP2163.05(V) states “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed.”.
In this instance, Applicant’s specification states “The present invention relates generally to safety arrangements for rail vehicle braking systems. Especially, the invention relates to a controller according to the preamble of claim 1 for estimating individual axle weights of a rail vehicle to enable enhanced braking of the rail vehicle.” (Page 1 lines 5-9). The specification discloses the manner in which a wheel axle specific coefficient of friction Uk may be determined (Page 10 lines 15-20) based in part on specific axle wheel speeds, overall weight of the rail vehicle mtot, applied brake force to the specific axle wheels, etc. However, subsequent recitations (e.g. Page 16, line 1 through Page 17 line 6) of the manner in which applicant purportedly estimates the respective fractions m1, m2, mn of the overall mtot carried by each of the axles, merely recite the desired result without sufficiently identifying how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Additionally, in contrast to the disclosed equations for estimation of the total mass of the rail vehicle mtot (Page 8 lines 25-30), and the disclosed equation for estimation of a wheel axle specific coefficient of friction Uk (Page 10 lines 15-20); there are no formulas or original written disclosure with respect to determination of the respective fractions (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles.
As a result, 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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-13 depend from Claims 1 and 7 respectively, but fail to resolve the deficiency with respect to satisfying the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
Regarding Claim 1, for purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of Claim for purposes of evaluation under 35 USC § 101 as follows:
(A) “obtain a power signal…a speed signal”
(B) “
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Abstract Ideas:
With respect to Independent Claim , claim limitations () recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) () fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations () encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper. Limitations ) (include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic Controller outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) () constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) B “brake unit applies an increasing brake force to a specific wheel axle” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims 2-3, and 6 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
Regarding Claim 7, for purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of Claim for purposes of evaluation under 35 USC § 101 as follows:
(A) “obtaining a power signal…a speed signal”
(B) “
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Abstract Ideas:
With respect to Independent Claim , claim limitations () recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) () fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations () encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper. Limitations ) (include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic Controller outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) () constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) B “brake unit applies an increasing brake force to a specific wheel axle” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims 8-9, and 11 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
Patent Eligible Subject Matter:
Regarding Claims 4 and 10
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, Claims 4 and 10 (and any dependents therefrom including all the limitations of Claims 4 and 10), which depend from Claims 1 and 7 respectively, DO include limitations “wherein the controller (140) is configured to provide the respective fractions (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) to a braking controller to enable the braking controller to produce a respective brake force signal (BF1) to each brake unit (101) in the set of brake units (101, 102, 103, 104), which respective brake force signal (BF1) is based on the respective fractions (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot).” And “further comprising: providing the respective fractions (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) to a braking controller to enable the braking controller to produce a respective brake force signal (BF1) to each brake unit (101) in the set of brake units (101, 102, 103, 104), which respective brake force signal (BF1) is based on the respective fractions (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot).”that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied by a computer or computing device or via software programming and enable the braking controller to produce a modified brake force to each brake unit that is based on the respective fractions of the overall weight.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) of Claims 4 and 10 do transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. 20210284110) in view of Herden (U.S. Pat. 8972144). Kumar discloses a “controller performs at least some of the operations of the vehicle control system described herein. For example, the controller determines the weight on each wheel, the diameter of each wheel, and the adhesion capabilities of the wheels on the route. The controller then assigns torque settings for rotating the wheels based on the adhesion capabilities, weights, and wheel diameters to provide increased control over the vehicle relative to assigning torque to the wheels without factoring adhesion capability. The controller represents hardware circuitry that includes and/or is connected with one or more processors 122 (e.g., one or more microprocessors, integrated circuits, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, etc.). The control system includes and/or is connected with a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., memory) 124 disposed onboard the vehicle. For example, the memory may store programmed instructions (e.g., software) that is executed by the one or more processors to perform the operations of the controller described herein. The memory additionally or alternatively may store different information, such as a route database, a trip schedule, a trip plan that provides tractive and braking settings associated with different locations along the route, parameters of the vehicle, and/or the like.” (¶0022; Fig. 1-4)
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar discloses: A controller (Fig. 1, 118; ¶0018 ) for estimating individual axle weights (¶0022; “the controller determines the weight on each wheel”) of a rail vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0017; “the vehicle is a rail vehicle”) comprising a number of wheel axles (¶0017; “the wheels of the vehicle are mechanically coupled to axles 108. Each axle may mechanically couple to multiple wheels that are spaced apart along a length of the axle to define a respective wheelset 110. In the illustrated embodiment, the vehicle has six wheelsets and twelve associated wheels, but the vehicle can have more or less than six wheelsets in other embodiments.)) and a set of brake units (¶0019; “ The propulsion subsystem can also include brake components for providing braking effort to slow and stop the vehicle during a braking mode of the vehicle. The brakes may include or represent friction brakes, air brakes, and/or the like.”) configured to apply a respective brake force to each of the wheel axle so as to cause retardation of the rail vehicle (¶0019; “for providing braking effort to slow and stop the vehicle during a braking mode of the vehicle”), which controller (118) is configured to obtain: a power signal (Pm) indicating an amount of power produced by an onboard motor (¶0050; “ The controller (e.g., the torque assignment module thereof) can allocate power in the form of torque among the first, second, and third wheels or wheelsets in FIG. 3 to meet the commanded tractive output”) to accelerate the rail vehicle (¶0042; “ during an acceleration period or a period where an incline grade is encountered, the controller may receive a command for maximum tractive effort. In response, the controller may assign torque settings to cause each of the wheels to provide the respective adhesion-limited tractive effort”)) from a first speed (zero, i.e. from a stop) to a second speed (a threshold speed, e.g. 40mph), a speed signal indicating respective values of the first and second speeds (¶0034; “When the vehicle is accelerating from stop, the controller assigns torque settings to the individual wheels or wheelsets based at least in part on enforcing (e.g., not exceeding) the designated wheelslip margin. Once the vehicle exceeds the threshold speed, such as 40 mph”) and based thereon estimate an overall weight (mtot) (¶0040; “The static weight, cargo weight, fuel level, and position of the wheel can be used to determine how much of the total weight of the vehicle is applied on the route by each corresponding wheel.”) of the rail vehicle, wherein the controller (118) is further configured to: (a) obtain wheel speed signals indicating respective rotational speeds of the wheel axles (Fig. 1, sensors 128; “the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed, weight, throttle position, creep, wheel slip, and/or the like. The sensors can include force sensors, throttle position sensors, accelerometers, speed sensors, surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensors, and/or the like.”; ¶0023), (b) produce a brake control signal (B1) to a specific brake unit (101) in the set of brake units such that this brake unit applies a gradually increasing brake force to a specific wheel axle (131) of said wheel axles (¶0057; “the vehicle control system may periodically update the available adhesion values of the wheels by challenging one or more of the wheels until slip occurs. For example, the controller may control the propulsion subsystem to gradually increase the torque exerted on one wheel (e.g., a first wheel) above the assigned torque setting for that wheel. “ ¶0057 and “At 410, the torque settings for the wheels are communicated to a propulsion subsystem of the vehicle for driving rotation of the corresponding wheels according to the torque settings during a propulsion mode and/or a braking mode of the vehicle. “; ¶0065; braking torque gradually increased until wheel slip occurs as determined by wheel speed sensors) ,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle (¶0057; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping based on rotational wheel speed and vehicle speed; ¶0023 “the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed.”;
determine a parameter (pm) reflecting a friction coefficient (pe) between a pair of wheels (121a, 121 b) on the specific wheel axle (131) and a pair of rails (181, 182) upon which the rail vehicle (100) travels, (¶0057; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping. Based on the time that the first wheel initially slips and the gradually increasing torque settings, the controller determines the torque threshold above which the first wheel slips. The torque threshold can be input into Formula 4 above to update the adhesion-limited tractive effort for the first wheel. The updated adhesion-limited tractive effort can be used to update the available adhesion value for the first wheel using Formulas 2 and 3, for example” and “effective adhesion value for each corresponding wheel as the friction coefficient and the respective force on the route exerted by the corresponding wheel as the weight”; ¶0043)
and repeat steps (a) to (c) for each of said wheel axles (¶0057; “during travel of the vehicle along the route, the vehicle control system may periodically update the available adhesion values of the wheels by challenging one or more of the wheels until slip occurs”), and based thereon estimate a respective fraction (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles. (¶0039; “The controller can determine the respective force (e.g., weight) exerted by each respective wheel or wheelset based on: (i) a static weight of the vehicle; (ii) a weight of cargo loaded onto the vehicle, (iii) a load being pulled by the vehicle, (iv) a fuel level of the vehicle, (v) a position of the wheel along a length of the vehicle, (vi) movement characteristics of the vehicle, (vii) wheel sizes, and/or (viii) a presence of dynamic weight management actuator forces.” And “he static weight, cargo weight, fuel level, and position of the wheel can be used to determine how much of the total weight of the vehicle is applied on the route by each corresponding wheel.” (¶0040)
Kumar teaches all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Kumar discloses determining wheel slip based on individual wheel speeds compared to overall vehicle speed in order to determine an updated parameter reflecting an adhesion value and/or friction coefficient (¶0043) between each set of wheels and the corresponding rails. However, Kumar does not explicitly recite determining wheel slip based on a wheel speed difference exceeding a threshold value.
Therefore Kumar does not explitly disclose:
,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value,…(d) determine the friction coefficient.
Herden discloses methods and apparatus configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip.
Specifically, “during braking the brake actuators on at least two selected axles of the rail vehicle train are subjected, by means of actuation by the brake control unit, to a braking pressure which exceeds a braking pressure corresponding to the braking request of the braking operation. More than two axles, in particular all the braked axles, of the rail vehicle train may be selected. (19) In this context, the wheel rotational speeds which are measured by the wheel rotational speed sensors of the selected axles may make available a variable representing the maximum transmittable frictional force in each case between the wheel sets of the selected axles and the rail. Alternatively, each variable which represents the maximum transmittable braking frictional force in each case between the wheels of the selected axles and the rail, such as for example the wheel circumferential acceleration, the braking force, the braking torque or the braking pressure, can be used. (20) For example, an average wheel rotational speed is formed from the wheel rotational speeds of the selected axles, and the individual wheel rotational speeds are compared with this average wheel rotational speed, wherein a significantly smaller individual wheel rotational speed indicates a high braking slip of the respective wheel set and therefore frictional engagement in the region of the sliding friction and a somewhat higher wheel rotational speed or an individual wheel rotational speed corresponding to the average wheel rotational speed indicates a low brake slip and therefore frictional engagement in the region of the static friction. Frictional engagement in the region of the sliding friction indicates a relatively low transmittable frictional force, and frictional engagement in the region of the static friction indicates a relatively high frictional force of the axle in question. In this case, the wheel rotational speeds of the selected axles are transferred to the electronic brake control unit for evaluation. (21) Within the brake control unit there is a memory for storing a list in which the selected axles are then assigned to their respectively transmittable frictional force (high or low). (22) The evaluation logic within the brake control unit is designed to identify the list of the axles with brake slip at which, while braking is taking place, brake slip which exceeds a predefined degree occurs and therefore the antislip regulation has to be activated.” (See Col. 4 line 22-63)
Therefore Herden discloses methods and apparatus configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip including wherein ,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value (See Col. 4 line 22-63) in order that a reduction in the braking force, performed by the antislip regulation, at axles with locking brakes, which leads to a situation in which the desired deceleration of the rail vehicle or rail vehicle train is not achieved and the braking distance is lengthened, is avoided. (Col. 1 line 48-53)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the system configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip of Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Herden to include ,(c) determine, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value to in order that a reduction in the braking force, performed by the antislip regulation, at axles with locking brakes, which leads to a situation in which the desired deceleration of the rail vehicle or rail vehicle train is not achieved and the braking distance is lengthened, is avoided. (Col. 1 line 48-53)
Regarding Claim 7, Kumar discloses: A computer-implemented (Fig. 1, 118; ¶0018 ; implementing Fig. 4 method) for estimating individual axle weights (¶0022; “the controller determines the weight on each wheel”) of a rail vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0017; “the vehicle is a rail vehicle”) comprising a number of wheel axles (¶0017; “the wheels of the vehicle are mechanically coupled to axles 108. Each axle may mechanically couple to multiple wheels that are spaced apart along a length of the axle to define a respective wheelset 110. In the illustrated embodiment, the vehicle has six wheelsets and twelve associated wheels, but the vehicle can have more or less than six wheelsets in other embodiments.)) and a set of brake units (¶0019; “ The propulsion subsystem can also include brake components for providing braking effort to slow and stop the vehicle during a braking mode of the vehicle. The brakes may include or represent friction brakes, air brakes, and/or the like.”) configured to apply a respective brake force to each of the wheel axle so as to cause retardation of the rail vehicle (¶0019; “for providing braking effort to slow and stop the vehicle during a braking mode of the vehicle”), said method performed in at least one processor (118) and comprises: obtaining a power signal (Pm) indicating an amount of power produced by an onboard motor (¶0050; “ The controller (e.g., the torque assignment module thereof) can allocate power in the form of torque among the first, second, and third wheels or wheelsets in FIG. 3 to meet the commanded tractive output”) to accelerate the rail vehicle (¶0042; “ during an acceleration period or a period where an incline grade is encountered, the controller may receive a command for maximum tractive effort. In response, the controller may assign torque settings to cause each of the wheels to provide the respective adhesion-limited tractive effort”)) from a first speed (zero, i.e. from a stop) to a second speed (a threshold speed, e.g. 40mph), obtaining a speed signal indicating respective values of the first and second speeds (¶0034; “When the vehicle is accelerating from stop, the controller assigns torque settings to the individual wheels or wheelsets based at least in part on enforcing (e.g., not exceeding) the designated wheelslip margin. Once the vehicle exceeds the threshold speed, such as 40 mph”) and based thereon estimating an overall weight (mtot) (¶0040; “The static weight, cargo weight, fuel level, and position of the wheel can be used to determine how much of the total weight of the vehicle is applied on the route by each corresponding wheel.”) of the rail vehicle, wherein the controller (118) is further configured to: (a) obtaining wheel speed signals indicating respective rotational speeds of the wheel axles (Fig. 1, sensors 128; “the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed, weight, throttle position, creep, wheel slip, and/or the like. The sensors can include force sensors, throttle position sensors, accelerometers, speed sensors, surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensors, and/or the like.”; ¶0023), (b) producing a brake control signal (B1) to a specific brake unit (101) in the set of brake units such that this brake unit applies a gradually increasing brake force to a specific wheel axle (131) of said wheel axles (¶0057; “the vehicle control system may periodically update the available adhesion values of the wheels by challenging one or more of the wheels until slip occurs. For example, the controller may control the propulsion subsystem to gradually increase the torque exerted on one wheel (e.g., a first wheel) above the assigned torque setting for that wheel. “ ¶0057 and “At 410, the torque settings for the wheels are communicated to a propulsion subsystem of the vehicle for driving rotation of the corresponding wheels according to the torque settings during a propulsion mode and/or a braking mode of the vehicle. “; ¶0065; braking torque gradually increased until wheel slip occurs as determined by wheel speed sensors) ,(c) determining, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle (¶0057; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping based on rotational wheel speed and vehicle speed; ¶0023 “the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed.”;
determining a parameter (pm) reflecting a friction coefficient (pe) between a pair of wheels (121a, 121 b) on the specific wheel axle (131) and a pair of rails (181, 182) upon which the rail vehicle (100) travels, (¶0057; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping. Based on the time that the first wheel initially slips and the gradually increasing torque settings, the controller determines the torque threshold above which the first wheel slips. The torque threshold can be input into Formula 4 above to update the adhesion-limited tractive effort for the first wheel. The updated adhesion-limited tractive effort can be used to update the available adhesion value for the first wheel using Formulas 2 and 3, for example” and “effective adhesion value for each corresponding wheel as the friction coefficient and the respective force on the route exerted by the corresponding wheel as the weigh”; ¶0043)
and repeating steps (a) to (c) for each of said wheel axles (¶0057; “during travel of the vehicle along the route, the vehicle control system may periodically update the available adhesion values of the wheels by challenging one or more of the wheels until slip occurs”), and based thereon estimating a respective fraction (m1, m2, mn) of the overall weight (mtot) carried by each of said wheel axles. (¶0039; “The controller can determine the respective force (e.g., weight) exerted by each respective wheel or wheelset based on: (i) a static weight of the vehicle; (ii) a weight of cargo loaded onto the vehicle, (iii) a load being pulled by the vehicle, (iv) a fuel level of the vehicle, (v) a position of the wheel along a length of the vehicle, (vi) movement characteristics of the vehicle, (vii) wheel sizes, and/or (viii) a presence of dynamic weight management actuator forces.” And “he static weight, cargo weight, fuel level, and position of the wheel can be used to determine how much of the total weight of the vehicle is applied on the route by each corresponding wheel.” (¶0040)
Kumar teaches all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Kumar discloses determining wheel slip based on individual wheel speeds compared to overall vehicle speed in order to determine an updated parameter reflecting an adhesion value and/or friction coefficient (¶0043) between each set of wheels and the corresponding rails. However, Kumar does not explicitly recite determining wheel slip based on a wheel speed difference exceeding a threshold value.
Therefore Kumar does not explicitly disclose:
(c) determining, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value,…(d) determine the friction coefficient.
Herden discloses methods and apparatus configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip.
Specifically, “during braking the brake actuators on at least two selected axles of the rail vehicle train are subjected, by means of actuation by the brake control unit, to a braking pressure which exceeds a braking pressure corresponding to the braking request of the braking operation. More than two axles, in particular all the braked axles, of the rail vehicle train may be selected. (19) In this context, the wheel rotational speeds which are measured by the wheel rotational speed sensors of the selected axles may make available a variable representing the maximum transmittable frictional force in each case between the wheel sets of the selected axles and the rail. Alternatively, each variable which represents the maximum transmittable braking frictional force in each case between the wheels of the selected axles and the rail, such as for example the wheel circumferential acceleration, the braking force, the braking torque or the braking pressure, can be used. (20) For example, an average wheel rotational speed is formed from the wheel rotational speeds of the selected axles, and the individual wheel rotational speeds are compared with this average wheel rotational speed, wherein a significantly smaller individual wheel rotational speed indicates a high braking slip of the respective wheel set and therefore frictional engagement in the region of the sliding friction and a somewhat higher wheel rotational speed or an individual wheel rotational speed corresponding to the average wheel rotational speed indicates a low brake slip and therefore frictional engagement in the region of the static friction. Frictional engagement in the region of the sliding friction indicates a relatively low transmittable frictional force, and frictional engagement in the region of the static friction indicates a relatively high frictional force of the axle in question. In this case, the wheel rotational speeds of the selected axles are transferred to the electronic brake control unit for evaluation. (21) Within the brake control unit there is a memory for storing a list in which the selected axles are then assigned to their respectively transmittable frictional force (high or low). (22) The evaluation logic within the brake control unit is designed to identify the list of the axles with brake slip at which, while braking is taking place, brake slip which exceeds a predefined degree occurs and therefore the antislip regulation has to be activated.” (See Col. 4 line 22-63)
Therefore Herden discloses methods and apparatus configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip including wherein (c) determining, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value (See Col. 4 line 22-63) in order that a reduction in the braking force, performed by the antislip regulation, at axles with locking brakes, which leads to a situation in which the desired deceleration of the rail vehicle or rail vehicle train is not achieved and the braking distance is lengthened, is avoided. (Col. 1 line 48-53)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the system configured to detect and mitigate rail vehicle wheel slip of Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Herden to include ,(c) determining, repeatedly during production of the brake control signal (B1), an absolute difference (Iw1 - waI) between the rotational speed of the specific wheel axle (131) and an average rotational speed (wa) of said wheel axles except the specific wheel axle; and in response to the absolute difference exceeding a threshold value to in order that a reduction in the braking force, performed by the antislip regulation, at axles with locking brakes, which leads to a situation in which the desired deceleration of the rail vehicle or rail vehicle train is not achieved and the braking distance is lengthened, is avoided. (Col. 1 line 48-53).
Regarding Claim 2 Kumar further discloses: comprising at least one interface configured to receive first and second vector signals (VS1, VS2), (Fig. 1, sensors 128 shown being sent to controller 118 via an interface) wherein the first vector signal (VS1) expresses an acceleration of the rail vehicle in at least one dimension (¶0040; “The movement characteristics can represent the vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, throttle settings, brake settings, a bounce effect from the suspension, and/or the like. Dynamic weight shifts can be determined in part based on force sensors onboard the vehicle, such as potentiometers, piezoresistive pressure sensors, and/or the like, which can represent one or more of the sensors 128 shown in FIG. 1.”), and the second vector signal (VS2) expresses a respective rotational movement of the wheels on each wheel axle of said wheel axles , which rotational movement is performed in a plane orthogonal to a respective rotation axis of the wheel axle (Fig. 1, 128, sensors include wheel speed sensors expressing respective rotational movement in a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis of each wheel; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping”; ¶0040), and the controller (118) is configured to obtain the wheel speed signals indicating the respective rotational speeds based on the first and second vector signals (¶0023; “ the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kumar further discloses: receiving first and second vector signals (VS1, VS2) via at least one interface ((Fig. 1, sensors 128 shown being sent to controller 118 via an interface)), which first vector signal (VS1) expresses an acceleration of the rail vehicle in at least one dimension (¶0040; “The movement characteristics can represent the vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, throttle settings, brake settings, a bounce effect from the suspension, and/or the like. Dynamic weight shifts can be determined in part based on force sensors onboard the vehicle, such as potentiometers, piezoresistive pressure sensors, and/or the like, which can represent one or more of the sensors 128 shown in FIG. 1.”), which second vector signal (VS2) expresses a respective rotational movement of the wheels on each wheel axle of said wheel axles, which rotational movement is performed in a plane orthogonal to a respective rotation axis of the wheel axle (Fig. 1, 128, sensors include wheel speed sensors expressing respective rotational movement in a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis of each wheel; “sensors onboard the vehicle, such as wheel speed sensors, determine that the first wheel is slipping”; ¶0040),, and obtaining the wheel speed signals indicating the respective rotational speeds (w1,w2, w3, w4) based on the first and second vector signals (¶0023; “ the sensors may generate data parameters representative of torque, rotational wheel speed, vehicle speed”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Kumar further discloses: wherein the first vector signal (VS1) further expresses an inclination angle of the rail vehicle relative to a horizontal plane (H), and the controller (118) is configured to adjust at least one of the power signal (Pm) indicating the amount of power produced by the onboard motor and the speed signal indicating the second speed (v2) based on the inclination angle when estimating the overall weight (mtot) of the rail vehicle (¶0052; “during an acceleration period or a period where an incline grade is encountered, the controller may receive a command for maximum tractive effort. In response, the controller may assign torque settings to cause each of the wheels to provide the respective adhesion-limited tractive effort.”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Kumar further discloses: provide(ing) the respective fractions of the overall weight (mtot) to a braking controller (¶0040; “The static weight, cargo weight, fuel level, and position of the wheel can be used to determine how much of the total weight of the vehicle is applied on the route by each corresponding wheel.”) to enable the braking controller to produce a respective brake force signal to each brake unit in the set of brake units which respective brake force signal is based on the respective fractions of the overall weight ((¶0057; “the vehicle control system may periodically update the available adhesion values of the wheels by challenging one or more of the wheels until slip occurs. For example, the controller may control the propulsion subsystem to gradually increase the torque exerted on one wheel (e.g., a first wheel) above the assigned torque setting for that wheel. “ ¶0057 and “At 410, the torque settings for the wheels are communicated to a propulsion subsystem of the vehicle for driving rotation of the corresponding wheels according to the torque settings during a propulsion mode and/or a braking mode of the vehicle. “;in other words the fraction of the total weight carried by each axle is utilized by the controller to determine a maximum amount of tractive (propulsive or braking) torque each wheel can transmit to the rail without slipping, based also on the determined friction coefficient of each wheel).
Regarding Claim 5, Kumar further discloses: wherein the controller (118) is co-located with the braking controller (118; Fig. 1, controllers located on vehicle)
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, Kumar further discloses: wherein the controller (118) is configured to transmit the brake control signal via a data bus in the rail vehicle (Fig. 1, controller 118 is shown connected via data bus communication network (lines) to communicate data and control signals)
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Kumar further discloses A computer program (“instructions (e.g. software”)) loadable into a non- volatile data carrier (“a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., memory) 124”) communicatively connected to at least one processor (“one or more processors 122 (e.g., one or more microprocessors, integrated circuits, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, etc.).”), the computer program comprising software for executing the method according to claim 10 when the computer program is run on the at least one processor And A non-volatile data carrier (“a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., memory) 124”) containing the computer program (“instructions (e.g. software”)) of the claim 12. (“The controller represents hardware circuitry that includes and/or is connected with one or more processors 122 (e.g., one or more microprocessors, integrated circuits, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, etc.). The control system includes and/or is connected with a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., memory) 124 disposed onboard the vehicle. For example, the memory may store programmed instructions (e.g., software) that is executed by the one or more processors to perform the operations of the controller described herein. The memory additionally or alternatively may store different information, such as a route database, a trip schedule, a trip plan that provides tractive and braking settings associated with different locations along the route, parameters of the vehicle, and/or the like.”; ¶0022)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hart (U.S. Pat. 5820226). Hart discloses “A railway freight brake system for operating vehicles in a train wherein each vehicle responds in braking situations to provide a generally uniform net braking ratio on all cars in the train. Embodiments include vehicles receiving a brake signal and utilizing either a received train net braking ratio or utilizing a stored on-board train net braking ratio to control pneumatic equipment on-board the vehicle to produce brake forces on the vehicle generally corresponding to the net braking ratio of the train. Some embodiments use a common train line control to communicate both train net braking ratio and brake signals to the individual vehicle. Individual vehicles can receive periodic or initial train net brake ratio values.” (Abstract)
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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 BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights