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 . Claims 1-14 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 1-14 were cancelled and claims 15-24 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 15-24 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “the control system” and “the vehicle control system” but should instead recite --the electronic control system-- in both instances.
Claims 17-18 recite “the driving command” but should instead recite --the driving commands-- or --one of the driving commands--.
Claims 16 and 18 recite “the control system” but should instead recite --the electronic control system--.
Claim 18 recites “the drive” but should instead recite --a drive--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “landside operational control center” in claims 15-24 and “monitoring instance” in claims 15-24.
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.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “landside operational control center” in claims 15-24 and “monitoring instance” in claims 15-24 all use a generic placeholder “center” and “instance” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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. The claims recite “landside operational control center” and “monitoring instance”. The specification doesn’t recite the structural elements of said limitations. The specification provides no structure for the “landside operational control center” or the “monitoring instance”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 15-24 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.
Claim limitations “landside operational control center” and “monitoring instance” invoke 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. 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 15 recites “using a monitoring instance being independent from the control system to detect a movement of the rail vehicle, compare the detected movement with a valid driving command of the vehicle controller and, in an event of a deviation, initiate a braking being independent from the control system to bring the rail vehicle to a standstill”. However, in order compare two types of information to determine a deviation, the detected movement and/or the driving command would need to be converted into comparable types of information with comparable units. A valid driving command and a movement detection are fundamentally different types of information and are not directly comparable in this sense to determine a deviation without first converting to a common parameter. The claim and the specification do not describe any such conversions. However, the specification does state that the absence of the driving command is interpreted as preventing movement, and that the deviation is identified as a fault. Therefore, it seems that the specification is indicating that a comparison to determine a deviation is actually indicated by not receiving a driving command. However the claim explicitly requires comparing a valid driving command. If the valid driving command is not even received, how can it be compared to the movement detection? This claim limitation appears to contradicts the explanation in the specification, and it is therefore unclear what the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood in light of the specification, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that in an event of a fault, initiate a braking being independent from the control system to bring the rail vehicle to a standstill.
Claim 15 recites “using a sensor on the axle of the rail vehicle for motion detection, the sensor detecting an increasing tractive force on a bogie axle of the rail vehicle”. Previously the claim refers to multiple sensors disposed on at least one axle. It is unclear of “a sensor” is intended to refer to one of the sensors or a different sensor entirely. Furthermore, the claims should continue to recite --the at least one axle-- instead of “the axle” to avoid confusion and maintain consistency and clarity. Finally, it is unclear if the bogie axle being claimed is considered to be a different axle than the at least one axle already recited. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the at least one axle includes a bogie axle, and using one of the sensors for motion detection, the sensor detecting an increasing tractive force on the bogie axle of the rail vehicle. The limitation “the deviation” in claim 16 is similarly interpreted as the fault.
Claim 24 recites “using a tachometer generator, disposed on an axle of the rail vehicle, as a sensor”. It is unclear if this is the same sensor and axle as the sensor on the bogie axle recited in claim 15, or a different sensor and axle. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the claim is referring to the sensor on the bogie axle.
Claims 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 15 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 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.
Claims 15, 17-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proll (EP 2 511 146 B1, cited in the IDS dated 2/28/2025, a machine translation of the corresponding application EP 2 511 146 A2 is attached and is being relied upon) in view of Seaton (US 2016/0304105 A1) and Weigl (US 4,164,872 A).
Regarding claim 15, Proll discloses a method for ensuring a standstill of a rail vehicle (see at least [0021] – monitoring and controlling the braking systems for preventing parked vehicles from rolling away), the method comprising: using a vehicle controller having an electronic control system to implement driving commands and standstill commands in the rail vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0037-0038] – locomotive control… control systems (compressed air brake control 8 and spring brake control 9)); using a monitoring instance being independent from the control system to detect a movement of the rail vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2, 4-6, [0017, 0022, 0032, 0035-0037] – device 1… includes an accelerometer or motion sensor 36 as well as an electronic compass 43 to detect vehicle movement), compare the detected movement with a valid driving command of the vehicle controller and, in an event of a deviation, initiate a braking being independent from the control system to bring the rail vehicle to a standstill (see at least [0015, 0021, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0037-0039] – in the case of rolling away, or when there is a fault for example a line break when reading the battery circuits, or if the locomotive control is deactivated then an emergency brake application is triggered (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the corresponding interpretation of this limitation)); using sensors for the movement detection (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0017, 0022, 0032] – accelerometer or motion sensor 36 as well as an electronic compass 43 to detect vehicle movement), and operating the sensors electrically independently from the vehicle control system (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0017, 0022, 0032] – accelerometer or motion sensor 36 as well as an electronic compass 43 to detect vehicle movement).
Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose operating the rail vehicle autonomously and without an intervention of a train driver; using a landside operational control center to issue the driving commands and standstill commands in the rail vehicle; using a vehicle controller having an electronic control system to implement driving commands and standstill commands in the rail vehicle; using sensors disposed on at least one axle of the rail vehicle for the movement detection; and using a sensor on the axle of the rail vehicle for motion detection, the sensor detecting an increasing tractive force on a bogie axle of the rail vehicle.
Seaton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: operating the rail vehicle autonomously and without an intervention of a train driver (see at least Fig. 2, [0039-0040] – automatic train operation (ATO) system 231… autonomously control the movements and/or operations of the lead locomotive); using a vehicle controller having an electronic control system to implement driving commands and standstill commands in the rail vehicle (see at least Fig. 2, [0030] - communicate commands such as throttle, dynamic braking, and pneumatic braking commands 233 to the microprocessor-based locomotive control system 237); using a landside operational control center to issue the driving commands and standstill commands in the rail vehicle (see at least Fig. 2, [0030] - The cab electronics system 238 may be configured to process and integrate the received data, receive command signals from the off-board remote controller interface 204, and communicate commands such as throttle, dynamic braking, and pneumatic braking commands 233 to the microprocessor-based locomotive control system 237 (either one of the off-board remote controller interface 204 or the cab electronics system 238 read on the landslide operational control center, since both issue commands)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Seaton into the invention of Proll with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of autonomously controlling the movements and/or operations of the lead locomotive (Seaton – [0040]). Implementing autonomous control instead of manual control would yield predictable results, as it is well known in the art of various kinds of vehicles so that vehicles can be controlled without the need for a driver monitoring and intervening in the vehicle operation.
Weigl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: using sensors disposed on at least one axle of the rail vehicle for the movement detection (see at least column 1, lines 10-35 – bogie locomotive… tachometer generator on each dead or driving axle to determine spinning or slipping of the drive wheels of the railroad vehicles); and using a sensor on the axle of the rail vehicle for motion detection, the sensor detecting an increasing tractive force on a bogie axle of the rail vehicle (see at least column 1, lines 10-35 and column 2, lines 25-40 – tachometer generator on each dead or driving axle to determine spinning or slipping of the drive wheels of the railroad vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Weigl into the invention of Proll with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to determine rotational speed/velocity and therefore motion of the bogie, and for automatic control to correct drive power as needed (Weigl – column 1, lines 10-35 and column 2, lines 25-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement different types of sensors (such as a tachometer generator) to detect motion in a manner that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose which further comprises using the landside operational control center to transmit the driving command to the rail vehicle at least one of over a secure radio link or by using a secure data transmission.
Seaton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: using the landside operational control center to transmit the driving command to the rail vehicle at least one of over a secure radio link or by using a secure data transmission (see at least Fig. 2, [0030, 0038] – Remote control of the various powered and non-powered units on the train 102 through communication between the on-board cab electronics system 238 and the off-board remote controller interface 204 may be facilitated via the various communication units 120, 126, 160, 166 spaced along the train 102. The communication units may include hardware and/or software that enables sending and receiving of data messages between the powered units of the train and the off-board remote controller interfaces. The data messages may be sent and received via a direct data link and/or a wireless communication link, as desired. The direct data link may include an Ethernet connection, a connected area network (CAN), or another data link known in the art. The wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enable the communication units to exchange information between the off-board remote controller interface 204 and the various components and subsystems of each of the locomotives or other powered units in the train 102.).
The motivation to combine Proll and Seaton is the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 18, Proll discloses which further comprises, in an absence of the driving command with a simultaneously detected movement of the rail vehicle, using the monitoring instance to at least one of deactivate the drive of the rail vehicle independently from the control system or initiate the braking independently from the control system (see at least [0015, 0021, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0037-0039] – in the case of rolling away, or when there is a fault, for example a line break when reading the battery circuits, or if the locomotive control is deactivated then an emergency brake application is triggered).
Regarding claim 21, Proll discloses which further comprises transmitting information relating to the detected movement together with an indication of a position of the rail vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0022, 0032, 0035] – monitoring position data, for example via GPS, and/or by using acceleration).
Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose transmitting information to the landside operational control center.
Seaton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: transmitting information to the landside operational control center (see at least Fig. 2, [0030] - The cab electronics system 238 may comprise at least one integrated display computer configured to receive and display data from the outputs of one or more of machine gauges, indicators, sensors, and controls. The cab electronics system 238 may be configured to process and integrate the received data, receive command signals from the off-board remote controller interface 204, and communicate commands such as throttle, dynamic braking, and pneumatic braking commands 233 to the microprocessor-based locomotive control system 237.).
The motivation to combine Proll and Seaton is the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 22, Proll discloses which further comprises determining the position indication in a satellite-based manner on the rail vehicle (see at least [0022, 0032, 0035] - GPS).
Regarding claim 23, Proll discloses which further comprises initiate the braking in the rail vehicle as soon as an unwarranted movement of the rail vehicle is detected (see at least [0015, 0021, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0037-0039] – in the case of rolling away, or when there is a fault, for example a line break when reading the battery circuits, or if the locomotive control is deactivated then an emergency brake application is triggered).
Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose using the landside operational control center to initiate the braking.
Seaton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: using the landside operational control center to initiate the braking (see at least Fig. 2, [0030] - The cab electronics system 238 may comprise at least one integrated display computer configured to receive and display data from the outputs of one or more of machine gauges, indicators, sensors, and controls. The cab electronics system 238 may be configured to process and integrate the received data, receive command signals from the off-board remote controller interface 204, and communicate commands such as throttle, dynamic braking, and pneumatic braking commands 233 to the microprocessor-based locomotive control system 237.).
The motivation to combine Proll and Seaton is the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 24, Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose which further comprises using a tachometer generator, disposed on an axle of the rail vehicle, as a sensor.
Weigl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: using a tachometer generator, disposed on an axle of the rail vehicle, as a sensor (see at least column 1, lines 10-35 – bogie locomotive… tachometer generator on each dead or driving axle to determine spinning or slipping of the drive wheels of the railroad vehicles).
The motivation to combine Proll and Weigl is the same as in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proll in view of Seaton, Weigl, and Hilpert (WO 2016/134964 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 16, Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose which further comprises, in the event of the deviation, additionally deactivating a drive of the rail vehicle, and performing the deactivation independently from the control system.
However, Proll does disclose in the event of the deviation, performing the deactivation independently from the control system (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0015, 0021, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0037-0039] – in the case of rolling away, or when there is a fault, for example a line break when reading the battery circuits, or if the locomotive control is deactivated then an emergency brake application is triggered).
Hilpert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: in the event of the deviation, additionally deactivating a drive of the rail vehicle, and performing the deactivation independently from the control system (see at least Fig. 1, [0048-0049] – If the traction cut-off module 52 detects that the drive current measurement Ma indicates active drive operation of the drive and at the same time the emergency brake signal SBS indicates emergency braking, it generates a control signal ST with which a switch 60 is opened. When closed, switch 60 connects the drive 20 of the rail vehicle 10 to a power supply connection of the rail vehicle 10 (not shown), and when open, it disconnects the drive 20 from this power supply connection. By generating the control signal ST or by opening the switch 60, the drive 20 is forced to be switched off regardless of whether the drive control unit wants to continue to actively operate the drive 20 or not. The monitoring device 50 thus forms an independent component that can switch off the drive 20 independently of the drive control device if this is necessary from an operational point of view.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hilpert into the invention of Proll with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to ensure a higher level of operational safety by utilizing a monitoring device that switches of the drive regardless of the control by the drive control device, while the drive control device is operating independently and parallel to the monitoring device (Hilpert – [0006-0007]).
Regarding claim 19, Proll discloses which further comprises implementing the standstill by performing a direct intervention in in braking devices of the rail vehicle, bypassing the electronic control system (see at least [0015, 0021, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0037-0039] – in the case of rolling away, or when there is a fault, for example a line break when reading the battery circuits, or if the locomotive control is deactivated then an emergency brake application is triggered).
Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose implementing the standstill by performing a direct intervention in drive devices.
Hilpert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: implementing the standstill by performing a direct intervention in drive devices (see at least Fig. 1, [0048-0049] – If the traction cut-off module 52 detects that the drive current measurement Ma indicates active drive operation of the drive and at the same time the emergency brake signal SBS indicates emergency braking, it generates a control signal ST with which a switch 60 is opened. When closed, switch 60 connects the drive 20 of the rail vehicle 10 to a power supply connection of the rail vehicle 10 (not shown), and when open, it disconnects the drive 20 from this power supply connection. By generating the control signal ST or by opening the switch 60, the drive 20 is forced to be switched off regardless of whether the drive control unit wants to continue to actively operate the drive 20 or not. The monitoring device 50 thus forms an independent component that can switch off the drive 20 independently of the drive control device if this is necessary from an operational point of view.).
The motivation to combine Proll and Hilpert is the same as in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 20, Proll does not appear to explicitly disclose which further comprises implementing the standstill by performing a direct intervention in a main energy supply of the rail vehicle, bypassing the electronic control system, to shut down the main energy supply.
Hilpert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: implementing the standstill by performing a direct intervention in a main energy supply of the rail vehicle, bypassing the electronic control system, to shut down the main energy supply (see at least Fig. 1, [0048-0049] – If the traction cut-off module 52 detects that the drive current measurement Ma indicates active drive operation of the drive and at the same time the emergency brake signal SBS indicates emergency braking, it generates a control signal ST with which a switch 60 is opened. When closed, switch 60 connects the drive 20 of the rail vehicle 10 to a power supply connection of the rail vehicle 10 (not shown), and when open, it disconnects the drive 20 from this power supply connection. By generating the control signal ST or by opening the switch 60, the drive 20 is forced to be switched off regardless of whether the drive control unit wants to continue to actively operate the drive 20 or not. The monitoring device 50 thus forms an independent component that can switch off the drive 20 independently of the drive control device if this is necessary from an operational point of view.).
The motivation to combine Proll and Hilpert is the same as in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is a the relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Foerster (US 2016/0109476 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights