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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0052 “ECB” should be spelled out the first time it is used1. Maybe “ECB” is a typo and should be “BCE”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification does not include sections headings per US practice.
The specification includes seven instances of the misspelling “optimizer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Per 37 CFR 1.75 (i) please paragraph (further indent) the following claims 1 & 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 14 “a electronic control unit” should be –an electronic control unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 10 “and by the and” is grammatically awkward and should be corrected.
In line 11 “a external sensors” should be –external sensors--.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the boundary of said braking system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is not understood. Particularly because of the phrase “said mathematical model comprises at least one block for estimating the boundary conditions”. The examiner does not understand what “block” the claim is referring too.
The “block” recited in claim 5 is in antecedent conflict with the “friction block” recited in parent claim 1.
Secondly, what kind of “block” can do “estimating” in a mathematical model?
Antecedent problem with “the boundary conditions”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the estimate of the temperature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the estimate of the distribution of the temperature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10:
Preamble “the thermal properties of a braking element” is an antecedent problem.
Lines 3 & 5 the instances of “a braking element” are antecedent problems.
Line 6 “the block” is an antecedent problem.
Line 3 recites the limitation "the laboratory" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The line 6 phrase “pressed/rested” is unclear. Examiner believes that the applicant means –cycled between pressed and rested conditions--.
Line 9 “suitably equipped” is a relative phrase. The word “suitably” is not defined so the examiner will interpret as just –equipped--.
Line 12 “the temperature data” is an antecedent problem.
The phrase “the data detected by external sensors” is an antecedent problem. The applicant should also positively recite “external sensors” first before using in an action.
Lines 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. The components, (a) model tuning block, (b) mathematical model and (c) optimizer should be positively recited before being used in functional language2. Positively reciting these components will make the other components recited in these lines more understandable.
Claim 11:
Antecedent problem with “the laboratory test” in line 5.
Examiner is not sure he understands what “real mode” means. Looking to the specification it reveals “in real mode (e.g. during a long-term test) or a laboratory test, e.g. on a dynamic test bench capable of reproducing all conditions of the application in real mode (e.g. ambient temperatures, air flow...). In other words, a real mode is a test under running conditions.
The 4th paragraph has various problems.
Antecedent problem with “the temperature data” in line 9.
The 4th paragraph should be reworded. There are numerous possibilities recited in what appears to be a Markush type claim format. The examiner is not sure he follows all the possible iterations. Examiner interprets this paragraph as reciting that temperature data is acquired during a test from all of a temperature sensor, one or more temperature detectors, external sensors and “if present” EHC units.
The final phrase of the paragraph makes no sense “to the electronic control unit”. What is going to the electronic control unit.
Antecedent problem with “the thermal power exchange” in line 14.
Next to last paragraph.
Antecedent problem with “a model tuning block”.
Secondly, what kind of “block” can do “estimating” in a mathematical model? Is this block a physical component or a programming algorithm step?
Last paragraph antecedent problem with “the boundary conditions”.
Claim 12:
Antecedent problem in line 4 with “the boundary”.
Antecedent problem in line 7 with “the data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Friesen et al (US2024/0308483).
A system for monitoring the status of a braking system (0002) comprising at least one brake (fig. 1) comprising at least one braked rotor (fig. 1 at “first friction element 1”, 0045 “friction element of the friction braking system may comprise a brake disk and/or a brake lining of a disk brake”), at least one braking element (fig. 1 at 2 “second friction element 2”) comprising at least one block of the friction material (0074 friction element 1 “element 2, are pressed against the brake disk, i.e. the first friction element 1”), a support of the block of friction material (fig. 1) and at least one temperature sensor (“temperature sensor 12”) configured and arranged for sensing a direct temperature measurement performed at an internal point of said braking system (fig. 2 at 12), a plurality of sensors (“running speed sensor 10”, “braking pressure sensor 11”) for sensing physical and dynamic conditions of said braking system and at the boundary of said braking system (figures 1 & 2), at least one electronic control unit (0081 “computing unit 7 is connected by way of corresponding data lines to a control unit 8”) comprising at least a plurality of algorithms (fig. 3A, 3B; 0032 & 0033) configured for at least the acquisition, process archive and communication of the data (0079) detected by said plurality of sensors (0079 “speed sensor 10”, “braking pressure sensor 11”, “braking pressure p” etc.), characterized in that said at least one electronic control unit comprises at least one mathematical model (0067 “A model is to be understood as meaning any physical-mathematical model”; 0081 “control unit 8 influences the kinematic behavior…based on a thermal calculation in the model”) configured as a braking system thermal model (BSTM) for the evaluation and presentation of an estimate (0081) of the thermal status (“thermal state”) of said braking system (0075-0076), wherein said mathematical model (0018 last sentence) is configured to use as input data at least the temperature acquired by said at least one temperature sensor (0070) to estimate (0029, 0060-0071) the thermal status of said braking system (0076 “…based on results of the thermal calculations.”) processed by said mathematical model (claim 10, 0018, 0029 or 0060-0071).
Claim 2 Friesen discloses the system for monitoring the status of a braking system of claim 1, characterized in that said temperature sensor is configured and arranged to detect the temperature (Tback) of said support of said braking element (0019, fig. 2 at 12 & Tu, 0078 “ambient temperature sensor 12 are arranged in a chassis (not represented) of the rail vehicle”).
Claim 3 Friesen discloses the system for monitoring the status of a braking system claim 2, characterized in that said temperature sensor (“temperature sensor 12”) is a contact temperature sensor integrated in the support or a non-contact temperature sensor (0078 “ambient temperature sensor 12 for detecting an ambient temperature Tu”), and is configured and positioned so as to detect a temperature of a surface of the support or an average temperature of the support (0078 “the ambient temperature sensor 12 are arranged in a chassis (not represented) of the rail vehicle”).
Claim 4 Friesen discloses the system for monitoring the status of a braking system of claim 3, characterized in that said estimate of the status of said braking system of said mathematical model takes place in real time (0029 “the predictive friction element temperature Tpred is then calculated or estimated by a model based on the current operating situation”, 0089 “the model of the computing unit 7, a first temperature component Tcurrent…component Tcurrent then corresponds for example to the surface temperature calculated or estimated by the model” ).
Claim 6 (as best understood) Friesen discloses the system for monitoring the status of a braking system of claim 1, characterized in that said estimate processed by said mathematical model on the status of said braking system comprises at least the estimate of the temperature (Trot) of said braked rotor (0018, 0030 1st sentence, 0064-65, 0069-71).
Claim 9 Friesen discloses the system for monitoring the status of a braking system of claim 1, characterized in that said mathematical model of the status of said braking system is configured to comprise as input data the acquisition of at least one data of at least one sensor of said plurality of sensors of physical and dynamic conditions of said braking system and at the boundary of said braking system (0078 1st sentence, 0079 e.g., “sensor 10 data”).
Claim 12 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Friesen et al (US2024/0308483).
A system for monitoring the status of a braking system (Abstract 1st sentence) comprising at least one sensor for sensing a direct measurement performed at an internal point of said braking system (0078 1st sentence e.g., “braking pressure sensor”), a plurality of sensors for sensing physical and dynamic conditions of said braking system (0078 “running speed sensor 10”, “raking pressure sensor 11”, “ambient temperature sensor 12”) and at the boundary of said braking system (0054 “operational boundary conditions”), at least one electronic control unit (0076 “control unit 8 represented in FIG. 2”) comprising at least one plurality of algorithms (0032 last sentence “prescribed algorithm”, 0033 “alternative algorithm”, figures 3A & 3B) configured for at least the acquisition, process archive and communication of the data detected by said plurality of sensors (0078 “connected by way of corresponding data lines to a computing unit 7, in order to make the sensor signals available to the model”), said at least one electronic control unit comprising at least one mathematical model (0067 “physical-mathematical model”) configured as a braking system thermal model (BSTM) for the evaluation and presentation of an estimate of the thermal status of said braking system (0060-0066 “thermal state of a friction braking system”, 0081 “thermal calculation in the model implemented in the computing unit 7 and transmitted to the control unit”), wherein said mathematical model is configured to use as input data at least the measurement acquired by said at least one sensor (0078 1st sentence) of a measurement in order to estimate the thermal status (“thermal state”) of said braking system processed by said mathematical model (0060-0071 “partially calculated or estimated by a model”).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 7 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen et al (US2024/0308483) in view of Antanaitis et al (US2026/0138665).
Friesen does not disclose that said estimate of said mathematical model on the status of said braking system comprises the estimate of the distribution of the temperature in said braking element.
Antanaitis discloses an estimate of a mathematical model on the status of a braking system (“brake pad wear model”) comprises the estimate of the distribution of the temperature in said braking element (Abstract 2nd sentence, 0024, claim 1). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to augment the brake monitoring system of Friesen with the braking system status and distribution temperature monitoring system of Antanaitis. A motivation for this combination would be to permit a more nuanced monitoring of the overall system especially when the importance is greater. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658.
1 See 112(b) rejection of claim 5 below.
2 MPEP 2115 “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”
