DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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.
In Claim 1 there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the determined forces between the vehicles”. It is suggested applicant be consistent with the limitations in the claims. That is, at one moment the claim recites, “forces between the two or more vehicles” and then at another moment the claim recites, “forces between the vehicles”.
Please it is respectfully requested to be consistent.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the base claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathews (US 9849807).
Regarding claim 1, Mathews discloses a method comprising:
controlling operation of a vehicle system (figs. 1-10; abstract, col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15) according to a first set of operating conditions (operating settings, weather, trip, route, location, changing parameters, etc; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15) while the vehicle system is moving along a route, wherein two or more vehicles of the vehicle system are each configured to contribute a predetermined amount of effort to propel the vehicle system to move along the route based on the first set of operating conditions (abstract, col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15), the effort being at least one of tractive effort or braking effort (col. 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3);
determining, while the vehicle system is moving along the route, forces between the two or more vehicles (abstract, col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3);
based on forces between the two or more vehicles related to the predetermined amount of effort and the determined forces between vehicles, determining a revised amount of effort that at least one of the two or more vehicles of the system needs to contribute to propel the vehicle system to minimize forces between vehicles (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3);
changing from controlling the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions to automatically controlling operation of the vehicle system according to a second set of operating conditions (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3);
Regarding claim 2, Mathews discloses the method of claim 1, comprising determining a difference of forces between vehicles related to the predetermined amount of effort and the determined forces, wherein determining comprises evaluating an objective function associated with forces of an end vehicle and with forces between pre-loaded vehicles (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Mathews discloses the method of claim 2, comprising, responsive to the difference of forces exceeding a predetermined tolerance, determining a revised amount of effort (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 4, Mathews discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining tractive effort and velocity of the vehicle system (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 5, Mathews discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising one or more of generating or receiving the first set of operating conditions including the predetermined amount of effort before the vehicle system starts moving along the route (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 6, Mathews discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the revised amount of effort is determined based on one or more of a current speed of movement of the vehicle system, environmental conditions in which the vehicle system is moving, route grades, route curvatures, a total amount of effort from the plural vehicles of the vehicle system, or a state of charge of one or more vehicles of the plural vehicles of the vehicle system (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 7, Mathews discloses the method of claim 1, wherein controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the second set of operating conditions changes a distance between at least two successive vehicles of the vehicle system relative to controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Mathews discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining forces between two or more vehicles comprises calculating the forces between two or more vehicles continually during movement along the route (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 9, Mathews discloses a control system (figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3), comprising:
one or more processors configured to control operation of a vehicle system according to a first set of operating conditions while the vehicle system is moving along a route, the vehicle system comprising plural vehicles configured to move together along the route (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3), wherein two or more vehicles of the vehicle system are each configured to contribute a predetermined amount of effort to control movement of the vehicle system to move along the route based on the first set of operating conditions (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3), the effort being at least one of tractive effort or braking effort (col 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3),
the one or more processors configured to determine, while the vehicle system is moving along the route, forces between vehicles (col 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3),
based on forces between vehicles related to the predetermined amount of effort and the determined forces between vehicles, determine a revised amount of effort that each of the two or more vehicles of the vehicle system needs to contribute to propel the vehicle system and to control one or more performance variables of the plural vehicles (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3),
the one or more processors configured to change from controlling the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions to automatically control operation of the vehicle system according to a second set of operating conditions (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 10, Mathews discloses the control system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to one or more of generate or receive the first set of operating conditions including the predetermined amount of effort before the vehicle system starts moving along the route (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Mathews discloses the control system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors configured to determine a difference of forces between vehicles related to the predetermined amount of effort and the determined forces, wherein determining comprises evaluating an objective function associated with forces of an end vehicle and with forces between pre-loaded vehicles (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 12, Mathews discloses the control system of claim 9, further comprising determining tractive effort and velocity of the vehicle system (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 13, Mathews discloses the control system of claim 9, wherein controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the second set of operating conditions changes an amount of force between at least two successive vehicles of the vehicle system relative to controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 14, Mathews discloses the control system of claim 9, wherein controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the second set of operating conditions changes a distance between at least two successive vehicles of the vehicle system relative to controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 15, Mathews discloses a method figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3), comprising:
one or more of generating or receiving a first set of operating conditions for controlling operation of a vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions before the vehicle system starts moving along a route, the vehicle system comprising plural vehicles, the first set of operating conditions specifying a predetermined amount of effort that each of two or more vehicles of the vehicle system is configured to contribute to propel the vehicle system to move along the route (col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3);
determining, while the vehicle system is moving along the route, forces between vehicles;
based on forces between vehicles related to the predetermined amount of effort and the determined forces between vehicles, determining a revised amount of effort that one or more vehicles of the vehicle system needs to contribute to propel the vehicle system to control one or more performance variables of the plural vehicles while the vehicle system is moving along the route figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3); and
changing from controlling the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions to automatically controlling operation of the vehicle system according to a second set of operating conditions figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 16, Mathews discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising determining a difference of forces between vehicles related to the predetermined amount of effort and the determined forces, wherein determining comprises evaluating an objective function associated with forces of an end vehicle and with forces between pre-loaded vehicles figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 17, Mathews discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising determining tractive effort and velocity of the vehicle system figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Mathews discloses the method of claim 15, wherein controlling the vehicle system according to the second set of operating conditions changes an amount of force between at least two successive vehicles of the vehicle system relative to controlling the vehicle system according to the first set of operating conditions figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 19, Mathews discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the revised amount of effort is determined based on one or more of a current speed of movement of the vehicle system, environmental conditions in which the vehicle system is moving, route grades, route curvatures, a total amount of effort from the plural vehicles of the vehicle system, or a state of charge of one or more vehicles of the plural vehicles of the vehicle system figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 20, Mathews discloses the method of claim 15, wherein determining forces between two or more vehicles comprises calculating the forces between two or more vehicles is carried out continually during movement along the route figs. 1-10; col. 2, lines 11 to col. 5, lines 15; 8, lines 25 to col. 9, line 3).
Conclusion
The prior art, US 12311913 B2, US 9037323 B2, US 20220185345 made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights