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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 May 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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.
The term “in a case where” is not definite. The term raises issues regarding uncertainty if the event will happen or will not happen. Claims should be positively recited in an active voice. To expedite prosecution, Examiner will not give substantial patentable weight to this term.
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.
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 1-4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0022346).
For claim 1, Shibata discloses a motor controller that is installed on a vehicle and configured to collectively control propulsion motors that apply a driving force to the vehicle, wherein the vehicle: includes a continuously variable transmission (see para. 0066) interposed between the propulsion motor (see Fig. 7, M1, M2) and a wheel shaft of the vehicle (see Fig. 7, #32); and the continuously variable transmission is configured to continuously change a transmission gear ratio as a ratio of a motor speed that is a rotational speed of the propulsion motor (see paras. 0111-0112), with respect to a wheel speed that is a speed of a wheel coupled to the wheel shaft (see para. 0114, element #32 equivalent to wheel speed), wherein the motor controller is configured to perform a first control for adjusting the transmission gear ratio to be instructed to the continuously variable transmission, based on wheel diameter information that is information regarding lengths of a plurality of the wheels in a radial direction (see para. 0114).
Shibata does not explicitly disclose a railroad vehicle that is towing another railroad vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of railroad propulsion at the effective date of filing and would have had the requisite knowledge to apply such teachings from Shibata to modify a railroad vehicle to include the transmission of Shibata based on an expectation of success and the motivation to improve when an output of an engine is reduced in presence of a failure in hydraulically operated frictional engaging devices of a continuously variable shifting portion (see para. 0006).
With reference to claim 2, Shibata further teaches wherein in a case where the first control is performed, a ratio of the transmission gear ratio is adjusted so that rotational speeds of the plurality of propulsion motors become the same (see para. 0099).
Pertaining to claims 3 and 4, Shibata does not explicitly disclose that the wheel information is stored electronically. However, because Shibata uses the diameter of each wheel, it must be stored or known within the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the system of Shibata would have stored the wheel diameter data somewhere in the system based on an expectation of success and the motivation to improve when an output of an engine is reduced in presence of a failure in hydraulically operated frictional engaging devices of a continuously variable shifting portion (see para. 0006).
Claim 8 contains substantially similar elements and subject matter to elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 1.
Claim 9 contains substantially similar elements and subject matter to elements and subject matter defined in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 2.
Claims 10 and 11 contain substantially similar elements and subject matter to elements and subject matter defined in claims 3 and 4. Accordingly, claims 10 and 11 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claims 3 and 4.
With regards to claim 12, Shibata further teaches wherein a transmission gear ratio instructor configured to receive information regarding an instruction value of the transmission gear ratio output from the motor controller is installed on the railroad vehicle (see para. 0100), and the transmission gear ratio instructor is configured to instruct the received instruction value of the transmission gear ratio to the continuously variable transmission (see para. 0100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights