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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul (US2022/0340119 A1).
Regarding to Claim 29, Paul teaches a gateway, comprising:
a facility for monitoring data traffic on a rail vehicle data bus connected to the gateway (Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraphs 18-21);
the gateway configured to use the data traffic to monitor a status of at least one component of the rail vehicle and, upon the status deviating from a target status specified for train preparation, to generate an error signal and, upon the error signal being present, to transmit a message with a gateway-specific mobile-radio-compatible communication interface reporting at least one of the error signal or a fault in the train preparation or the status deviation or a status change (Paragraphs 18, 13, the examiner considered the operating condition mentioned in Paragraphs 13 can be considered as an error signal under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Fig. 4, Paragraphs 42-50 teaches the operation).
Regarding to Claim 31, Paul teaches a rail vehicle, comprising the gateway according to claim 29 (Paragraph 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16, 20-22, 24-27, 29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul (US2022/0340119 A1) in view of Rota (US2023/0071247 A1).
Regarding to Claim 16, Paul teaches a train preparation method for bringing a stabled and not-yet-operational rail vehicle into an operational state, the method comprising:
using a gateway to monitor at least one status of at least one component of the rail vehicle, upon the status deviating from a target status specified for train preparation, generating an error signal and, upon the error signal being present, transmitting a message with a gateway-specific mobile-radio-compatible communication interface (Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraphs 18, 13, the examiner considered the operating condition mentioned in Paragraphs 13 can be considered as an error signal under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Fig. 4, Paragraphs 42-50 teaches the operation).
Paul fails to explicitly disclose, but Rota teaches a method comprising:
carrying out the train preparation in an active position of at least one current collector of the rail vehicle and supplying the rail vehicle with electrical energy by an electrical current flowing through the at least one current collector [Paul is silent whether the train comprises a current collector or not. Rota teaches a train system comprises a current collector to draw energy to drive the vehicle (Rota, Paragraph 3).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Paul to incorporate the teachings of Rota to use a current collector for a train in order to draw energy to drive the vehicle (Rota, Paragraph 3).
Regarding to Claim 20, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises:
connecting the gateway to a data bus of the rail-vehicle (Paul, Paragraphs 19-21);
using the gateway to monitor data traffic on the data bus (Paul, Paragraphs 19-21); and
using the gateway to monitor the status by evaluating the data traffic (Paul, Paragraphs 19-21).
Regarding to Claim 21, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises using a mobile radio network to send out a message upon the error signal being present, and using the message to report at least one of the current collector lowering or a fault in the train preparation upon the error signal being present (Paul, Paragraphs 18, 28-30).
Regarding to Claim 22, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises using a mobile radio network to send out a message as an SMS, a push message or an email, to another mobile radio terminal or to a trackside control center or a cloud-based control center (Paul, Paragraphs 18, 28-30).
Regarding to Claim 24, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises:
using a temperature sensor to detect a temperature development within the rail vehicle (Paul, Paragraphs 37-45, the examiner considered at least one of the components mentioned in the paragraphs would be within the rail vehicle. Therefore, the teachings of the paragraphs would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
inferring a deviation of the status of the component from the target status upon a measured temperature development deviating from a temperature development specified for the train preparation beyond a specified level (Paul, Paragraphs 37-45).
Regarding to Claim 25, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises using the temperature sensor to monitor the temperature development within a cargo section of the rail vehicle (Paul, Paragraphs 37-45, the examiner considered at least one of the components mentioned in the paragraphs would be within the rail vehicle. Therefore, the teachings of the paragraphs would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 26, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises connecting the at least one component or at least one of a plurality of components to be monitored in terms of status to a data bus of the rail vehicle, and determining the status of the component by observing data traffic on the data bus (Paul, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 42-50 teaches the operation. Paragraphs 19-21 teaches the parts which can be considered as data bus and data traffic).
Regarding to Claim 27, Paul in view of Rota teaches the modified method, which further comprises determining the status of the component by observing control commands transmitted over the data bus or measurement signals transmitted over the data bus or signal levels present on the data bus or process data transmitted over the data bus (Paul, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 42-50 teaches the operation. Paragraphs 19-21 teaches the parts which can be considered as data bus and data traffic).
Claims 17-19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul (US2022/0340119 A1) in view of Rota (US2023/0071247 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Aufderheide (US2019/0210623 A1).
Regarding to Claim 17, Paul and Rota fail to explicitly disclose, but Aufderheide teaches a method, which further comprises using the at least one current collector as the at least one component or at least one of a plurality of components having the status to be monitored [Aufderheide teaches a rail vehicle system comprises monitoring a status of a current collector (Aufderheide, Paragraphs 2, 3, 62-72) to increase the technical availability of vehicles and the route network while reducing the operating cost (Auderheide, Paragraph 6).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Paul and Rota to incorporate the teachings of Auderheide to monitor certain parameters in order to increase the technical availability of vehicles and the route network while reducing the operating cost (Auderheide, Paragraph 6).
Regarding to Claim 18, Paul in view of Rota and Auderheide teaches the modified method, which further comprises: monitoring at least one of a position or an actuation state of the at least one current collector as the status (Aufderheide, Paragraphs 2, 3, 62-72); and
generating the error signal upon at least one of the current collector being lowered or the actuation state of the current collector defining a lowering of the current collector (Aufderheide, Paragraphs 2, 3, 62-72).
Regarding to Claim 19, Paul in view of Rota and Auderheide teaches the modified method, which further comprises using or at least including a transmission of a lowering control command causing the at least one current collector to be lowered, in the monitoring of the actuation state of the at least one current collector (Rota, Paragraphs 30-34 would teach the operation to reflect the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 23, Paul and Rota fail to explicitly disclose, but Auderheide teaches a method, which further comprises using an electrical load connected to the current collector as the at least one component or at least one of a plurality of components to be monitored in terms of status [Auderheide teaches a rail vehicle system comprises monitoring a status of the load of current collector (Auderheide, Paragraph 72) to increase the technical availability of vehicles and the route network while reducing the operating cost (Auderheide, Paragraph 6).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Paul and Rota to incorporate the teachings of Auderheide to monitor certain parameters in order to increase the technical availability of vehicles and the route network while reducing the operating cost (Auderheide, Paragraph 6).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul (US2022/0340119 A1) in view of Rota (US2023/0071247 A1).
Regarding to Claim 30, Paul fails to explicitly disclose, but Rota teaches a gateway, wherein:
the gateway is configured to monitor the data bus during train preparation for a transmission of a lowering control command causing the at least one current collector to be lowered; and
the gateway is configured, upon detection of the lowering control command, to communicate the message that at least one of the fault in the train preparation has occurred or the lowering control command has been identified over a mobile radio network [Rota teaches a train system comprises a current collector to draw energy to drive the vehicle (Rota, Paragraph 3). Rota further teaches an operation of the current collector (Rota, Fig. 3, and based on the diagram of Paragraph 3, the limitations of second paragraph would be reflected. Based on the claimed language, the reference is not required to teach all the limitations, and the examiner considered the reference would teach “the lowering control command has been identified” in Fig. 3 under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to avoid dangerous electric arcs (Rota, Paragraph 35).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Paul to incorporate the teachings of Rota to use a current collector for a train and operate in certain way in order to avoid dangerous electric arcs (Rota, Paragraph 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747