DETAILED ACTION
1. The preliminary amendment filed on December 23, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 29-48 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 29, 33, 41 and 44 recite the limitation “the operation of at least one braking means” [line 1]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 29, 33, 41 and 44 recite the limitation “at least one braking means” [line 5]. There is insufficient double recitation for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the provision” [line 3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Applicants are required to clarify or to revise the claimed features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 29-31 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JUNG et al. (US 2017/0278319 A1).
Regarding claim 29, JUNG invention teaches a method for verifying the operation of at least one braking means of at least one vehicle, particularly at least one railway vehicle [title invention teaches a fault diagnosis method for brake of train], wherein said at least one vehicle comprises: at least one wheel or at least one axle to which at least one wheel is coupled, said at least one wheel being arranged to run on a rail [para. 0005]; at least one braking means associated with said at least one wheel or associated with said at least one axle [para. 0005 teaches various kinds of brakes including an adhesive brake, a non-adhesive brake, a tread brake (tread brake is the most common type of railway braking system, wherein a block of friction material is pushed onto the rolling surface, or “tread”, of a railway wheel), a disc brake, a generative brake, a regenerative brake, an eddy current disc brake (disk eddy current brake consists of a conductive non-ferromagnetic metal disc (rotor) attached to the axle of the vehicle's wheel, with an electromagnet located with its poles on each side of the disk, so the magnetic field passes through the disk. The electromagnet allows the braking force to be varied), an engine brake, and a converter brake have been developed]; said method for verifying the operation of said at least one braking means [para. 0035 teaches a brake performance unit (140) configured to monitor the brake performance] comprising the steps of: moving said at least one vehicle along said rail [para. 0005 teaches a train refers to a vehicle which travels along a rail or a corresponding track]; providing said at least one braking means with an actuation signal adapted to request said at least one braking means to generate a braking force [para. 0010 teaches upon receiving the signal, the brake controls the train to decelerate by generating braking force in the brake system] having a predetermined verification braking force value on the at least one wheel or on the at least one axle [“110”, Figure 2; and para. 035]; when said at least one braking means is required to generate a braking force having a predetermined verification braking force value on the at least one wheel or on the at least one axle, measuring an actual acceleration value of the at least one vehicle [“130”, Figure 2; and para. 0038-0039]; comparing the actual acceleration value with an expected acceleration value [para. 0042]; determining that the at least one braking means is malfunctioning (error message) when said actual acceleration value is different from said expected acceleration value [Figure 2; and para. 0015-0018, 0042].
Regarding claim 30, as discussed in claim 1, further notes para. 0038 which describes “The train model unit 120 calculates a required acceleration using the current speed of the train, the required braking force needed to stop the train, the curvature of a railroad along which the train is currently operated, and railroad gradient information. The required acceleration refers to an acceleration of the train expected when the brakes are put on the travelling train by the required braking force” [Furthermore, Figure 2; para 0019].
Regarding claim 31, as discussed in claim 1, notes Figures 3 and 6 which describes verifying whether said actual acceleration value differs from said expected acceleration value by at least a predetermined tolerance value; determining that the at least one braking means is malfunctioning, if it has been verified that said actual acceleration value differs from said expected acceleration value by at least said predetermined tolerance value [para. 0015-0018].
Regarding claim 44, see discussion in claim 29, JUNG invention further teaches the current speed of the train may be measured using a sensor such as, for example, a tachometer provided to the train.
Regarding claim 45, see discussion in claim 31.
Regarding claim 46, see discussion in claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 32-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG.
Regarding claim 32, as discussed in claims 29, notes para. 0005 teaches the various kinds of brakes and a control system which would have been well-known for generating a predetermined pneumatic actuation signal to the braking means [see para. 0007].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have provided the braking system (tread brake/disc brake) which comprises a brake pipe to allow a predetermined pneumatic actuation signal having a pressure value to cause said braking means for the purpose of generating the braking force having said predetermined verification braking force value.
Regarding claim 33, as discussed in claim 1, JUNG invention fails to specifically describes a term “acceleration reduction value”.
Since the term “acceleration reduction value” can be understood as “deceleration”; JUNG invention further teaches determining an actual acceleration reduction value [para. 0010 teaches when the train is automatically operated in the automatic mode or unmanned mode, the automatic train operation (ATO) system substituting the engineer configures a travel speed profile based on the train speed limit received from the ATP, and accelerates or decelerates the train by transferring powering output to a powering device of the train or transferring common braking output to the brake of the train. For the common braking output, a common braking command is output is output to the brake if the current speed of the train exceeds a speed in the configured speed profile. Upon receiving the signal, the brake controls the train to decelerate by generating braking force in the brake system]; comparing said actual acceleration reduction value with an expected acceleration reduction value [Figures 4-5, which describe an automatic train operation system operated due to braking performance degradation of a train]; and determining that the at least one braking means is malfunction (degraded mode) when said actual acceleration reduction value is different from said expected acceleration reduction value [para. 0052-0054].
The use of train speed controller to determine acceleration reduction value and provide the comparison therebetween to control the degradation of braking system which would have been well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have provided the control unit for controlling or determining the braking malfunction of the braking system based on the difference between the actual acceleration reduction value and the expected acceleration reduction value.
Regarding claim 34, see discussion and motivation in claim 33 and further see the rejection in claim 31.
Regarding claim 35, as discussed and motivated in claim 33, JUNG invention also teaches
wherein said actual acceleration reduction value is determined as a function of a first acceleration value of the vehicle measured before said at least one braking means is required to generate a braking force having a predetermined verification braking force value (Fa) on the at least one wheel or on the at least one axle [Figure 2 describes the acceleration value is determined before generating a braking force; and Figure 4 describes the deceleration is determined based on the acceleration value], and a second vehicle acceleration value measured when said at least one braking means is required to generate a braking force having a predetermined verification braking force value (Fa) on the at least one wheel [Figure 2 describes the current acceleration calculator calculates the current acceleration using the current speed information (second acceleration) and previous speed information (first acceleration)].
Regarding claim 36, as discussed and motivated in claim 33, further see discussion in claim 31.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, see discussion and motivation of claim 32.
Regarding claim 39, as discussed and motivated in claim 33, further see discussion in claim 33 [para. 0010 teaches upon receiving the signal, the brake controls the train to decelerate by generating braking force in the brake system].
Regarding claim 40, as discussed and motivated in claims 29 and 33, notes para. 0005 teaches the various kinds of brakes and a control system which would have been well-known for generating a predetermined pneumatic actuation signal to the braking means [see para. 0007].
Regarding claim 41, see discussion in claim 33.
Regarding claim 42, see discussion in claim 31.
Regarding claim 43, see discussion in claim 29.
10. Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG et al. in view of Leitel et al (US 2011/0231039 A1).
Regarding claim 47, as discussed in claim 1, JUNG invention fails to specifically describes a tilt sensor.
Notes para. 0059 which describes the inclination of the vehicle or of the shaft or of the vehicle axle can be determined.
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Leitel invention would have been recognized in the pertinent art of JUNG invention.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be included a tilt sensor for the purpose of monitoring an angle of inclination of the at least one vehicle.
Regarding claim 48, as discussed and motivated in claim 48, notes para. 0092 which teaches “it is possible to measure the weight of the actual load; and further notes para. 0177 which describes the weight of the actual payload of a rail vehicle or of a freight wagon is/are determined.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
February 5, 2026
/JHH/
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747