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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/20/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are currently pending in the application. Claims 3 and 6 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are considered on the merits herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 11/25/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
It is unclear if Fig. 2 depicts speed or time delay as a function of time as the line is labeled speed but only a time delay axis is provided.
The lines depicted in Fig. 13(a) are indistinguishable in grayscale.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a data mapping unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “specify an nth following car’s location of D×n in accordance with a car length of D on the basis of the travel distance calculated by the calculation unit (30), map the track curvature radius estimation value data measured at the lead car to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n, and then transmit the mapped track curvature radius estimation value to the active steering control units (40) of the following cars” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
No structure found
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 lines 11-16 the variables should be defined in the text of the claim per se rather than in the parenthetical clause.
At claim 2 line 2 “the car” should read --the lead car--.
At claim 4 lines 13-17 the variables should be defined in the text of the claim per se rather than in the parenthetical clause.
At claim 4 line 14 “bogie s” should read --bogies--.
At claim 5 line 2 “the car” should read --the lead car--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the displacement data” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- displacement data--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the displacement sensor” in line 14. It is unclear to which displacement sensor the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the front bogie displacement sensor--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the displacement sensor” in line 16. It is unclear to which displacement sensor the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the rear bogie displacement sensor--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the speed data” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the travel speed--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each railcar” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim as the only railcar introduced at this point in the claim is the lead car. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --each of at least one following car--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the track curvature radius estimation value data measured” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the track curvature radius estimation value calculated--.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “a data mapping unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely repeats the term and does not disclose the structure of the data mapping unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the displacement data received from” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the displacement measured by--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the displacement sensor” in line 15. It is unclear to which displacement sensor the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the front bogie displacement sensor--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the displacement sensor in line 17. It is unclear to which displacement sensor the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the rear bogie displacement sensor--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the speed data” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the travel speed--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the track curvature radius estimation value data measured” in lines 24-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the track curvature radius estimation value calculated--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “each railcar” in line 29. It is unclear whether the limitation includes the lead car and/or the following cars. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --each of the following cars--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “each car” in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --each of the following cars--.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system for estimating a track curvature for active steering control of railcars, the system comprising (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
displacement sensors installed on a front bogie and a rear bogie of a lead car in a train’s travel direction and configured to measure a car-front-back-direction relative displacement between the front bogie and the rear bogie between which a relative angle is formed due to a curved sectional track;
speed sensors configured to measure a travel speed of the lead car;
a calculation unit configured to
receive the displacement data measured by the displacement sensors,
estimate a front-back-direction relative angle between the front bogie and the rear bogie of the lead car from the measured relative displacement,
calculate an estimation value of a track curvature radius R using an equation, and
calculate a travel distance of the lead car on the basis of the speed data measured by the speed sensors;
active steering control units installed in a front bogie and a rear bogie of each railcar; and
a data mapping unit configured to
specify an nth following car’s location of D×n in accordance with a car length of D on the basis of the travel distance calculated by the calculation unit,
map the track curvature radius estimation value data measured at the lead car to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n, and then
transmit the mapped track curvature radius estimation value to the active steering control units of the following cars.
The analysis of claim 1 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations (e), (g), (j), (k).
The mathematical concept of limitation (f).
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitations (a), (b), (c), (h), (i), and (l).
The additional elements (a), (b), (d), and (l) are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements (c) and (i) of the calculation unit and data mapping unit are considered mere instructions to implement the recited abstract ideas on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas and cannot integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The additional elements (a), (b), and (h) amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to 1) mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, 2) mere instructions to implement the recited abstract ideas on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, and/or 3) merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 is rejected for failing to recite any further additional elements capable of integrating the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application or providing an inventive concept.
Claim Analysis - 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.
Claims 4-5 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the active steering control process recited in claim 4 integrates the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO (JP 2004-161115) in view of HUR (KR 20110061056).
Regarding claim 1, MATSUMOTO discloses a system for estimating a track curvature for active steering control of railcars, the system comprising:
speed sensors configured to measure a travel speed of a lead car (implied, pg. 14 lines 18-19);
a calculation unit (4, Fig. 3) configured to estimate a front-back-direction angle of the front bogie (3Aa) of the lead car (5a)(pg. 14 lines 5-6), calculate an estimation value of a track curvature radius R (pg. 14 lines 5-6), and calculate a travel distance of the lead car on the basis of the speed data measured by the speed sensors (implied, i.a. pg. 12 lines 3-5, pg. 14 lines 18-19);
active steering control units (1a) installed in a front bogie and a rear bogie of each railcar (3Aa…3Bn, pg. 14 line 8); and
a data mapping unit configured to specify an nth following car’s location of D×n in accordance with a car length of D (pg. 14 lines 11-14) on the basis of the travel distance calculated by the calculation unit (implied, pg. 14 lines 12-14 and 18-19), map an active steering actuator (1a) turning force based on the track curvature radius estimation value data measured at the lead car (pg. 14 lines 5-16) to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n (pg. 14 lines 14-16), and then transmit the mapped track curvature radius estimation value to the active steering control units of the following cars (pg. 14 lines 15-16).
MATSUMOTO teaches estimating the track curvature radius from the angle of the front bogie of the lead car in a train’s travel direction (pg. 14 lines 5-6) rather than from the equation claimed.
HUR teaches an alternative method for estimating a track curvature radius which can efficiently estimate a radius of a curvature of a railway vehicle (pg. 1 lines 17-18) comprising:
displacement sensors installed on a front bogie (112) and a rear bogie (114) of a car (100) and configured to measure a car-front-back-direction relative displacement between the front bogie and the rear bogie between which a relative angle is formed due to a curved sectional track (i.a. pg. 2 lines 17-19);
a calculation unit (implied/inherent) configured to receive the displacement data measured by the displacement sensors (implied), estimate a front-back-direction relative angle between of the front bogie and the rear bogie of the car from the measured relative displacement (pg. 2 lines 17-19, Fig. A below; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, c.f. Applicant’s pg. 1 line 17), calculate an estimation value of a track curvature radius R using an equation
R
=
2
L
x
∆
wherein 2L is a distance between a center of the front bogie and a center of the rear bogie (Fig. A), x is a separation distance of the displacement sensors from the centers of the front bogie and the rear bogie in a car width direction (Fig. A), and Δ is a sum of a separation distance Δ1 of the displacement sensor from the center of the front bogie in a car front-back direction and a separation distance Δ2 of the displacement sensor from the center of the rear bogie in the car front-back direction (Fig. A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the track curvature radius estimation technique of HUR for that of MATSUMOTO to provide a technique which can efficiently estimate a radius of a curvature of a railway vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
341
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A Google image translation of claim 3 of HUR.
MATSUMOTO discloses determining active steering actuator (1a) control signals for the following cars at the lead car and transmitting the control signals to the following cars (pg. 14 lines 5-16, Fig. 3) rather than transmitting the radius of curvature estimated at the lead car to the following cars (i.e., for subsequent determination of active steering actuator control signals) as claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MATSUMOTO such that the radius of curvature estimated at the lead car is instead mapped to following cars and transmitted to the following cars whereupon the following cars locally determine the active steering control signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification to eliminate the need for the lead car control unit to know the type and configuration of each active steering actuator in the train which would otherwise be required in the system of MATSUMOTO in order to determine the actuator control force by the lead car. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in transmitting the mapped radius of curvature to the following cars rather than the mapped actuator turning force as disclosed in MATSUMOTO.
MATSUMOTO as modified teaches a data mapping unit configured to specify an nth following car’s location of D×n in accordance with a car length of D on the basis of the travel distance calculated by the calculation unit, map the track curvature radius estimation value data measured at the lead car to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n, and then transmit the mapped track curvature radius estimation value to the active steering control units of the following cars.
Regarding claim 4, MATSUMOTO discloses a method of estimating a track curvature for active steering control of railcars, the method comprising:
a speed measurement process in which speed sensors measure a travel speed of the lead car (implied, pg. 14 lines 18-19);
a track curvature radius estimation process in which a calculation unit estimates a front-back-direction relative angle between a front bogie (3Aa) of a lead car (5a) in the train’s traveling direction (pg. 14 lines 5-6) and then calculates an estimation value of a track curvature radius R (pg. 14 lines 5-6);
a travel distance calculation process in which the calculation unit calculates a travel distance of the lead car on the basis of the speed data measured by the speed sensors (implied, i.a. pg. 12 lines 3-5, pg. 14 lines 18-19);
a following car location specification process in which a data mapping unit specifies an nth following car’s location of D×n in accordance with a car length of D (pg. 14 lines 11-14) on the basis of the travel distance calculated by the calculation unit (implied, pg. 14 lines 12-14 and 18-19);
a turning force data mapping process of mapping a turning force calculated from the track curvature radius estimation value measured at the lead car to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n (pg. 14 lines 11-14);
a mapping data transmission process of transmitting the mapped turning force to active steering control units (1a) installed in a front bogie and a rear bogie of each railcar (3Aa…3Bn, pg. 14 line 8)(pg. 14 lines 15-16); and
an active steering control process of separately controlling the active steering control units of each car on the basis of the mapped turning force (pg. 14 lines 14-17).
MATSUMOTO teaches estimating the track curvature radius from the angle of the front bogie of the lead car in the train’s travel direction (pg. 14 lines 5-6) rather than from the equation claimed.
HUR teaches an alternative method for estimating a track curvature radius which can efficiently estimate a radius of a curvature of a railway vehicle (pg. 1 lines 17-18) comprising:
a relative displacement measurement process in which displacement sensors () installed on a front bogie (112) and a rear bogie (114) of a car (100) measures a car-front-back-direction relative displacement between the front bogie and the rear bogie between which a relative angle is formed due to a curved sectional track (i.a. pg. 2 lines 17-19);
a track curvature radius estimation process in which a calculation unit estimates a front-back-direction relative angle between a front bogie and the rear bogie of the car from the displacement sensors (pg. 2 lines 17-19, Fig. A above; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, c.f. Applicant’s pg. 1 line 17), and then calculates an estimation value of a track curvature radius R using an equation
R
=
2
L
x
∆
wherein 2L is a distance between a center of the front bogie and a center of the rear bogie (Fig. A), x is a separation distance of the displacement sensors from the centers of the front and rear bogies in a car width direction (Fig. A), and Δ is a sum of a separation distance Δ1 of the displacement sensor from the center of the front bogie in a car front-back direction and a separation distance Δ2 of the displacement sensor from the center of the rear bogie in the car front-back direction (Fig. A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the track curvature radius estimation method of HUR for that of MATSUMOTO to provide a method which can efficiently estimate a radius of a curvature of a railway vehicle.
MATSUMOTO discloses determining active steering actuator (1a) control signals for the following cars at the lead car and transmitting the control signals to the following cars (pg. 14 lines 5-16, Fig. 3) rather than transmitting the radius of curvature estimated at the lead car to the following cars (i.e., for subsequent determination of active steering actuator control signals) as claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of MATSUMOTO such that the radius of curvature estimated at the lead car is instead mapped to following cars and transmitted to the following cars whereupon the following cars locally determine the active steering control signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification to eliminate the need for the lead car control unit to know the type and configuration of each active steering actuator in the train which would otherwise be required in the method of MATSUMOTO in order to determine the actuator control forces by the lead car. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in transmitting the mapped radius of curvature to the following cars rather than the mapped actuator turning force as disclosed in MATSUMOTO.
MATSUMOTO as modified teaches a turning force data mapping process of mapping a turning force calculated from the track curvature radius estimation value measured at the lead car to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n track curvature radius data mapping process of mapping the track curvature radius estimation value data measured at the lead car to following cars’ specified locations at intervals of D×n; a mapping data transmission process of transmitting the mapped track curvature radius estimation value the mapped turning force to active steering control units installed in a front bogie and a rear bogie of each railcar; and an active steering control process of separately controlling the active steering control units of each car on the basis of the mapped turning force the mapped track curvature estimation value.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO (JP 2004-161115) in view of HUR (KR 20110061056) and ISHIKAWA (JP H02-20750).
Regarding claim 2, MATSUMOTO as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
MATSUMOTO further discloses the speed sensors measure the travel speed of the lead car (implied, pg. 14 lines 18-19) are speed sensors that measure the travel speed of the front bogie of the lead car (pg. 14 lines 18-19).
MATSUMOTO does not disclose the speed sensors measure the travel speed of the lead car from numbers of wheel rotations of the front bogie and the rear bogie of the lead car nor that the calculation unit uses an average of a speed measured by the speed sensor of the front bogie and a speed measured by the speed sensor of the rear bogie as the travel speed to calculate the travel distance of the lead car.
ISHIKAWA evidences it is old and well known to take a vehicle speed as the average of a numbers of wheel rotations of a front wheel and a numbers of wheel rotations of a rear wheel in conditions where wheel slip is considered (lines 5-12 under “Detailed explanation of the device” on pg. 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the average of the numbers of wheel rotations of a front wheel and the numbers of wheel rotations of a rear wheel as the vehicle speed as evidenced by ISHIKAWA for the travel speed in MATSUMOTO to provide a more robust estimate of the travel speed of the lead car in conditions where wheel slip is likely. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in measuring the travel speed in this manner when practicing Applicant’s invention.
MATSUMOTO as modified teaches the speed sensors measure the travel speed of the car from numbers of wheel rotations of the front bogie and the rear bogie of the lead car, and the calculation unit uses an average of a speed measured by the speed sensor of the front bogie and a speed measured by the speed sensor of the rear bogie as the speed data to calculate the travel distance of the lead car.
Regarding claim 5, MATSUMOTO as modified teaches the system of claim 4.
MATSUMOTO further discloses, wherein, in the speed measurement process, the speed sensors measure the travel speed of the lead car (implied, pg. 14 lines 18-19) are speed sensors that measure the travel speed of the front bogie of the lead car (pg. 14 lines 18-19).
MATSUMOTO does not disclose wherein, in the speed measurement process, the speed sensors measure the travel speed of the car from numbers of wheel rotations of the front bogie and the rear bogie of the lead car, and in the travel distance calculation process, the calculation unit calculates the travel distance of the lead car on the basis of travel speed data acquired from an average of a speed measured by the speed sensor of the front bogie and a speed measured by the speed sensor of the rear bogie.
ISHIKAWA evidences it is old and well known to take a vehicle speed as the average of a numbers of wheel rotations of a front wheel and a numbers of wheel rotations of a rear wheel in conditions where wheel slip is considered (lines 5-12 under “Detailed explanation of the device” on pg. 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the average of the numbers of wheel rotations of a front wheel and the numbers of wheel rotations of a rear wheel as the vehicle speed as evidenced by ISHIKAWA for the travel speed in MATSUMOTO to provide a more robust estimate of the travel speed of the lead car in conditions where wheel slip is likely. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in measuring the travel speed in this manner when practicing Applicant’s invention.
MATSUMOTO as modified teaches in the speed measurement process, the speed sensors measure the travel speed of the car from numbers of wheel rotations of the front bogie and the rear bogie of the lead car, and in the travel distance calculation process, the calculation unit calculates the travel distance of the lead car on the basis of travel speed data acquired from an average of a speed measured by the speed sensor of the front bogie and a speed measured by the speed sensor of the rear bogie.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ERSCH (US 11,679,792) discloses transmitting a potential track anomaly at a track location identified by a first train car to a second train car, determining a time at which the second train car will pass over the track location and identifying the anomaly by the second train car at the determined time (Fig. 3). ERSCH does not disclose determining rail line curvature, transmitting the rail line curvature to following train cars, or active steering of bogies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (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 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights