US 2492022

I'll verify the patent details and check for any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks on litigation/dockets and the patent record.

US Patent 2,492,022 — Verification Summary

Search results note: Searches of public web sources (Google Patents, sitemap/docket aggregators, CAFC calendars and Federal Circuit case-law updates for 2026) returned no litigation, IPR, or CAFC docket activity concerning US 2,492,022. The only "2492022" hits outside patent databases were unrelated (e.g., a Brazilian Superior Tribunal de Justiça proceeding numbered "2492022," and a French patent reference "2492022" cited on a 1989 US patent). See caveats below.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

Abstract: The patent has no formal abstract. The text begins with "Our invention relates, generally, to control systems and, more particularly, to systems for controlling the operation of Diesel-electric locomotives and the like." The stated objects are (1) to preclude the injurious effect of unequal load division between parallel-connected generators, (2) to control load division between them, and (3) to permit unbalance in the current through parallel-connected motors while preventing unbalance in the current of the parallel-connected generators that supply those motors.

Technical substance (brief)

The system uses two engine-driven generators (G1, G2) feeding series traction motors (M1–M4). A paralleling switch (GP) connects the machines in parallel-circuit relation to limit voltage rise and stabilize the system during wheel slip. A relay (GPR) senses unbalance in the generator currents and opens GP when the current difference exceeds a preset amount, preventing one generator from being overloaded (e.g., if one engine loses fuel or dies). In Fig. 1 the relay uses a single series coil in the inter-generator circuit; in Fig. 2 the relay (GPR′) has two series coils (23, 24) in magnetic opposition, making it responsive to generator-current unbalance but not to motor-current unbalance — so stabilizing cross-currents during wheel slip do not trip the relay. The relay has an adjustable spring (18), a latch, and a signalling contact.

Plain-language overview of the claims (all seven are independent)

• Claim 1: Two generators + the motors each supplies, a switch that parallel-connects them and can disconnect one generator-and-its-motors from the other, a relay that opens the switch when the difference between generator currents exceeds a set amount, plus an adjustment to vary that permissible difference.
• Claim 2: Same combination as claim 1, but the relay specifically has differential coils responsive to the generator currents, opening the switch when the difference exceeds the preset amount.
• Claim 3: A plurality of traction motors and a plurality of generators supplying them, a paralleling switch that can disconnect one motor-group-and-its-generator from the other, and relay means responsive to unbalance in the generator currents to open the switch (no explicit threshold or adjustment).
• Claim 4: Same as claim 3, but the relay opens the switch when the difference in generator currents exceeds a predetermined amount.
• Claim 5: Same as claim 4, plus means for adjusting the relay to vary the permissible difference in generator currents.
• Claim 6: Plurality of traction motors and generators, paralleling switch, and differential relay means responsive to unbalance in the generator currents but not in the motor currents, to open the switch.
• Claim 7: Plurality of traction motors and generators, paralleling switch, and a relay having magnetically opposed coils that opens the switch when the generator current difference exceeds a predetermined amount.

Notes on identifiers and uncertainty

• No CAFC 2026 docket activity is possible for this patent as an enforceable right. US 2,492,022 issued in 1949 and expired on December 20, 1966 — well before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982. My searches found no CAFC 2026 docket, IPR, or district-court action naming this patent. I cannot rule out purely historical citations in an unrelated opinion, but nothing in the search results supports that.
• I could not independently verify a current USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment record, an Abstract, or a "current assignee" beyond what the patent front page and Google Patents state. The listed assignee (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) is the original assignee; treat "current assignee" as unverified.
• The source text is OCR-derived and contains garbled reference characters (e.g., "GI/G2" for G1/G2, "I5/I7/I8" for 15/17/18, "N3" for 18/spring). I have not auto-corrected these; I read them literally as printed in the source.
• Searches for the bare number "2492022" return significant noise (unrelated French and Brazilian records). Any docket/padlock check should be run against the full patent number US 2,492,022 or application serial 608,582, not the 7-digit string alone.

I'll search for litigation records involving US patent 2492022.

Let me try a couple more targeted searches to be thorough.

Findings: Litigation Involving US Patent 2,492,022

No litigation is known or documented involving US Patent 2,492,022.

I searched litigation-oriented sources and the open web for the specific number 2492022 combined with litigation, case, lawsuit, infringement, and Unified Patents terms. I found no case — district court, CAFC, PTAB, or ITC — asserting or challenging this patent.

Patent identification (for record-integrity purposes)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2492022/en

Why no litigation record should be expected

• The patent expired December 20, 1966 — over 59 years ago. It has been unenforceable for more than half a century, so it cannot be the basis of an infringement suit today.
• Dockets predate electronic coverage. PACER, the Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, and CourtListener largely begin in the 1980s–1990s. Any 1949–1966 era enforcement activity (if it existed) would not appear in those databases and would require manual archival research at NARA or the relevant district court clerk's office.
• No AIA post-grant proceedings are possible/meaningful. IPR/PGR/CBM practice (2012 onward) is not a realistic vehicle for a patent of this vintage, and none appear.
• The Google Patents record shows no litigation or "Cited By" litigation entries — only a later citing patent.

False positives encountered (explicitly NOT this patent)

Per the strict instruction not to auto-correct or conflate identifiers, I note these unrelated "2492022" hits and confirm they are not the US patent:

1. Brazilian STJ case "2492022" — Agravo em Recurso Especial nº 2492022, processo 2023/0384830-3 (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Brazil, registered 16 Nov 2023). A Brazilian appellate docket number, unrelated to any US patent.
2. French patent number 2492022 — cited as "2492022 10/1980 France" in the references of US 4,861,181. A foreign patent publication, not US 2,492,022.
3. Various "‑249" US patents (e.g., US 8,205,249 in Apple v. Aire Technology, IPR2022-01135). Different patents entirely.

Bottom line

No known litigation involving US Patent 2,492,022 exists in any available source. The patent expired in 1966 and was never (to the best of available records) the subject of a reported infringement suit or PTAB proceeding. I cannot rule out pre-1967 enforcement activity that would only be found in paper archives, but such activity is not reflected in any electronic litigation database and would be unprecedented for a 1940s Westinghouse generator-control patent. I will not fabricate case names, numbers, or dates to fill this gap.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 2,492,022

"Control system" — Weybrew & Strong, assignors to Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Filed 1945-08-02 · Granted 1949-12-20 · Application No. 608,582 · 7 claims
Analysis date: 2026-09-30

Threshold note before the analysis: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is accurate, and I could not corroborate or supplement it with anything — because there is nothing to supplement. US 2,492,022 is a pre-AIA patent that expired on 1966-12-20. Its entire AIA-trial exposure is zero, not because no one got around to filing, but because there was no assertable patent left to challenge by the time IPR/PGR/CBM existed (IPR petitions became available 2012-09-16).

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 2,492,022: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, no derivations, no institution decisions, no Final Written Decisions, no settlements, no Federal Circuit appeals arising from any PTAB trial (breakdown: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0); the bottom-line defensive posture is not the IPR-framed posture the assignment template anticipates — it is that this patent lapsed 32 years before the first IPR was ever filed and 60 years ago as of today, so there is no live claim to attack, no live claim to defend, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel landscape for a defendant to navigate. Any infringement demand citing US 2,492,022 fails at the threshold question of whether the patent has an enforceable term, not at the validity question.

Verification performed (and one important false-positive warning)

⚠️ False-positive trap. Searching "249" against PTAB materials surfaces a large volume of Aire Technology Limited and Apple/Samsung material — e.g. IPR2022-01135, Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology Limited, which concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249, an authentication patent asserted in WDTX litigation. That is a different patent with a coincidentally similar number, not US 2,492,022. Do not let a docket-string match import that proceeding, or its claim outcomes, onto this patent. Same caution for the '492 umbrella-patent petitions that appear in the same search results.

Proceedings

None to report. Rather than manufacture sections for proceedings that do not exist, the per-proceeding template is populated with the accurate null result:

(no proceeding) — no petitioner v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (now, by acquisition, as successor-in-interest to the expired patent)

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review was ever filed
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (structured data: no AIA trial proceedings on file)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of US 2,492,022 has ever been canceled or sustained in an AIA trial
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no FWD, therefore no CAFC appeal from a PTAB trial decision
• Defensive value: Total. The absence of PTAB art is irrelevant here because the patent is expired; the correct defense is a term/enforceability objection, not an invalidity case.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Claims 1–7 of US 2,492,022 (there are seven: independent-style claims 1–7 as recited in the printed patent, each drawn to a generator/motor paralleling control with unbalance-responsive relay means — Fig. 1 series-coil embodiment in claims 1, 3, 4, 5; the Fig. 2 differential/magnetically-opposed-coil embodiments in claims 2, 6, 7) are not "canceled," "sustained," or "untested in IPR." All seven simply lapsed with the patent's statutory term. Under the pre-1995 term rule (17 years from grant), the term ran 1949-12-20 → 1966-12-20, which matches the Google Patents "anticipated expiration" entry. (No maintenance fees are relevant: the maintenance-fee regime applies only to patents granted on or after 1980-12-12; this patent expired at the end of its natural term.) No reissue, reexamination, or disclaimer is evidenced in the record supplied.

Estoppel landscape. There is none, and § 315(e)(2) is inapposite: estoppel requires a petitioner, an instituted trial, and a final written decision. With no IPR ever filed, no petitioner or privy is estopped, and conversely no defendant gains the benefit of an estoppel shield. Theoretically every prior-art ground is "available" (§ 102/§ 103, plus § 112 if a PGR-eligible patent were involved — it is not), but availability is worthless against an expired patent because no infringing act can occur during the term and 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year damages lookback window closed on 1966-12-20. The 1949 "References Cited" — Wilson (US 771,347), Martin et al. (US 1,417,342), Kennedy (US 1,913,203), Frese (US 2,053,218), and inventor Weybrew's own earlier US 2,215,341 — is historical art of record only; no PTAB panel ever construed it against these claims.

Pattern signals. The usual PTAB pattern signals are absent in their entirety: no serial petitioner, no Unified Patents (or any defensive aggregator) in the chain, no patent-owner PTAB appeals strategy, no joinder activity, no General Plastic or Fintiv disputes. The only forward citation from this patent, US 2,715,702 (Motor control systems for tension control, Westinghouse, 1955), is a same-family-era corporate citation, not a challenge. The absence of PTAB activity here is not the "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" signal discussed in the template — it is a technology-era signal: the patent predates both the AIA and the entire modern parallel-generator locomotive market it was written for.

Recommended next steps

• If a demand letter, licensing program, or infringement suit cites US 2,492,022, do not build an IPR-based response. There is no IPR to point to and no FWD to quote, because none exists. The dispositive response is: the patent expired 1966-12-20; all seven claims lapsed; damages under § 284/§ 286 require the petition's brief to cite the relevant ground from the patent's file rather than a PTAB record.
• Treat any PTAB docket citation the other side supplies with suspicion. If an assertion package cites "IPR…-01135" or "IPR2022-00875" against "the '249 patent," verify the patent number digit-for-digit — those proceedings belong to U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249 (Aire Technology), not US 2,492,022. Number confusion of this type is the single most likely source of a fabricated-looking PTAB record in this matter.
• No trial-stage milestones to track. With no institution, there is no three-month institution deadline under § 314(b), no § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD clock, and no oral-hearing date. Nothing is pending.
• Verify independently if you need it for a filing. The authoritative null checks are the USPTO's AIA trial docket (PTAB E2E / the P-TACTS AIA Trial portal at https://ptacts.uspto.gov) searched by patent number 2,492,022, and the PTAB Decisions page (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions); the expired-term facts are on Google Patents US2492022A. I found no Federal Circuit or CourtListener docket for this patent, consistent with there being no Board decision to appeal.

Confidence statement. I have high confidence in the null result for AIA trials: the ODP structured block states it, and independent web searches (patent number, title, inventor names, and the pre-AIA reference list) produced no PTAB proceeding. I have no confidence in any statement about claim-level outcomes, panels, or appeal dispositions for this patent, because no such events occurred.

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before drawing conclusions.

I was unable to retrieve a direct USPTO Assignment Center record for this patent — my search tools returned no indexed assignment data for US 2492022 / application 608582, and the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent shows only filing, priority, grant, publication, and anticipated expiration entries. I am reporting that plainly rather than reconstructing a chain I could not verify. Treat all reel/frame fields below as unverified.

Inventors

Pattern check: No departure-within-12-months signal. Weybrew is a career Westinghouse traction-control engineer with a patent record spanning at least 1939–1950. That is the inverse of the "inventors bail out early" fire-sale tell.

Original assignee

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania corporation — as printed on the face of the issued patent ("assignors to Westinghouse Electric Corporation"). Note the name transition: the company was Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company when the application was filed (1945-08-02) and became Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1945, which is the name on the 1949-12-20 issue.

• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The patent claims a diesel-electric locomotive control system (paralleling generators across two engine-generator sets to limit voltage rise and wheel slip). Westinghouse built and sold the traction equipment and controls for diesel-electric locomotives and supplied motors/generators to locomotive builders from its East Pittsburgh and Lester, PA plants — a genuine operating-company implementation.
• Primary line of business: Large-scale electrical manufacturing — generation, transmission, motors, traction equipment, appliances, and later broadcasting.
• Current status: The original Pennsylvania corporation no longer exists as such. It acquired CBS Inc. (1995), renamed itself CBS Corporation effective 1997-12-01, and was absorbed by Viacom in 1999/2000. Its industrial units were divested piecemeal (defense electronics → Northrop Grumman 1996; power generation → Siemens 1998; nuclear → BNFL 1999; traction/transportation → AEG 1988 → Adtranz → Bombardier → Alstom). The "Westinghouse" name today sits with a ViacomCBS/Paramount brand-licensing subsidiary and with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (nuclear) — neither is the original assignee.

Assignment timeline

Finding: no post-issuance assignment of record was located for this patent in the sources available to me.

The only assignment transaction evidenced is the pre-issuance inventor-to-corporate assignment that produced the "assignors to Westinghouse Electric Corporation" legend on the printed patent. No reel/frame, execution date, recording date, or correspondent is recoverable from the indexed sources I could reach, and I will not invent one.

• Date unverified (pre-issuance, executed on/before 1949-12-20) / recorded unverified — Reel unverified/unknown
  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventors → employer)
  • Assignor: Thelbert L. Weybrew; Robert M. Strong
  • Assignee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation, East Pittsburgh, PA
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. Westinghouse filings of this era typically ran through the assignee's in-house patent department rather than a named outside correspondent, so the Assignment Center correspondent field for a 1940s recording may be blank or hold a Westinghouse internal attorney — either way I have no verified value.
  • Context: Standard employment assignment of invention rights; ordinary-course corporate ownership.

Critical non-finding: Nothing after 1949. That is expected and consistent here — the patent's 17-year term ran from issuance and expired 1966-12-20 (Google Patents shows "Anticipated expiration, 1966-12-20" and status "Expired - Lifetime"). A patent that has been in the public domain for ~60 years cannot be asserted, so nobody has an economic reason to record a transfer of it.

Caveat on the corporate chain: The Westinghouse → CBS → Viacom changes of 1997–2000 are corporate name changes and mergers, not patent-level assignments. I found no evidence that they were separately recorded against US 2492022, and I did not find SEC-filing or Assignment Center corroboration tying this specific patent to any transfer. Do not read the corporate timeline below as an assignment chain.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 2492022
    1945 : Filed by Weybrew and Strong
         : Rights assigned to Westinghouse
    1949 : Patent issued to Westinghouse Electric Corp
    1966 : Patent term expired
    1988 : Westinghouse traction unit sold to AEG
    1997 : Westinghouse renamed CBS Corporation
    1999 : CBS absorbed by Viacom

Events from 1988 onward are corporate-successor context, not recorded assignments of this patent.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No record of any transfer to an IP-holding or licensing vehicle was located.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee matching Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Round Rock, etc. appears at any point. The only assignee evidenced is an operating manufacturer.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / unverifiable. There is at most one recorded transaction and no correspondent data was retrievable, so recurrence cannot be established. Naming a firm here without a reel/frame would be speculation, which the brief prohibits.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero recorded post-issuance links; nothing chained.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was found, and the patent expired in 1966.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Westinghouse did not go bankrupt; the 1992–2000 events were a strategic divestiture and a name change, and this patent is not implicated in the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-type sales.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of Westinghouse moving patents to an NPE to assert against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Also worth recording affirmatively: this patent's outward citation is US 2,715,702 A (Westinghouse, 1955), and its own cited art includes US 2,215,341 A (Weybrew → Westinghouse, 1940). The whole neighborhood is operating-company traction-control art.

Verdict

Insufficient data (no post-issuance assignments located; only the original inventor-to-assignee assignment is evidenced).

Two facts drive this. First, no recorded transfer after the 1949 issuance exists in any source I could reach — meaning ownership of record stayed with Westinghouse Electric Corporation and its corporate successor, with no reel/frame evidencing an NPE hand-off. Second, and decisively, the patent expired 1966-12-20 and has been public domain for roughly six decades, so the "NPE vs. operating company" question has no live answer: there is no assertable right left to transfer or litigate. Any apparent NPE signal here would be an artifact of the modern Westinghouse trademark-licensing entity's name, not of this patent's chain.

Verify directly (I could not complete the query): USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), search patent number 2492022 or application 608582; Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US2492022/en. If Assignment Center returns a recorded 1940s reel/frame for the Westinghouse assignment, that would refine the first timeline entry but would not change this verdict.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start with the target patent and each of its cited references.

Let me gather details on each cited reference individually.

Let me search for the remaining cited references.

I was able to retrieve the authoritative patent text (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO/espacenet record) plus partial verification via web search, but I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull full text for every cited reference. Below I flag clearly what is verified from the record vs. what is inferred from titles/subject matter. Per the operating rule, I have not altered any patent numbers.

---

Target patent

Subject matter. Two (or more) engine-driven generators (G1, G2) feed series traction motors (M1–M4) on a Diesel-electric locomotive. A paralleling switch GP ties the two power plants together — chiefly to suppress voltage rise and stabilize the system during wheel slip. A relay (GPR in Fig. 1; differential relay GPR′ in Fig. 2) responds to an unbalance in the generator currents and opens GP when the current difference exceeds a preset amount, thereby preventing one generator from being dangerously overloaded while still allowing the beneficial stabilizing cross-currents. Fig. 1 uses a single series coil (15) in the inter-generator circuit; Fig. 2 uses two magnetically opposed coils (23, 24) so the relay responds to generator-current unbalance but not to motor-current unbalance. A spring (16) sets the trip threshold, a latch (18) prevents automatic reclosing, and contacts (19) energize a signal device (21).

---

Prior art of record (References Cited, all pre-date the Aug. 2, 1945 filing → available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b))

1. US 771,347 — Wilson

• Full citation: Control system for parallel lines, US 771,347, Stanley Electric Mfg Co.
• Dates: priority/filing Nov. 20, 1903; granted/published Oct. 4, 1904.
• Description: A control system for parallel-connected electric lines/generators; the earliest item of record and generically in the same field of load-sharing/paralleling control. (Title confirmed via the 1904 patents sitemap listing; full text not retrieved.)
• Potential § 102 relevance: The broadest, most generic reference. Could bear on the general concept underlying claims 1 and 3 (parallel switch + means responsive to operating condition of parallel-connected machines), but it is unlikely by itself to disclose the generator-current-unbalance relay limitation. Low-to-moderate anticipatory weight; more likely § 103 background.

2. US 1,417,342 — Martin & Clough

• Full citation: Electric ship propulsion, US 1,417,342, John Martin and Frederick H. Clough, assignors to General Electric Co., filed as application US455187A / US45518721A.
• Dates: filed Mar. 24, 1921; granted May 23, 1922; anticipated expiration 1939.
• Description (verified from retrieved text): A ship-propulsion system in which a plurality of prime movers drive alternators at different speeds/frequencies to synchronous propeller motors. The specification expressly addresses the problem of power flowing between parallel-connected sources and the need to control/prevent that cross-flow and preserve equal loading between the machines. This is the same class of problem the '022 patent solves (cross-current between paralleled generators).
• Potential § 102 relevance: Its teaching of controlling current flow between parallel-connected machines maps onto the "relay means responsive to an unbalance in the generator currents … for causing said switch to open" element, so it is the strongest of the five on the claims 1, 3, and 4 concept (unbalance-responsive disconnection of paralleled sources producing a stabilizing/cross current). Because it is an AC synchronous-motor system rather than a DC series-traction-motor system, it would not by itself disclose all elements of the DC-locomotive claims. Moderate weight; strongest against the genus claims, weaker against the specific differential-relay claims 2, 6, 7.

3. US 1,913,203 — Kennedy

• Full citation: Protective apparatus, US 1,913,203, Kennedy, General Electric Co.
• Dates: priority/filing May 27, 1930; granted/published June 6, 1933.
• Description: A protective-relay apparatus for dynamo-electric machines/systems; direction and subject matter place it in the same protective-relay art as the unbalance relay of the '022 patent. (Full text not retrieved; characterized from title, class, and assignee.)
• Potential § 102 relevance: Likely relevant to the "protective" function of the relay — i.e., the claims 1, 4, and 5 aspect of opening the paralleling switch upon an abnormal (overcurrent/unbalanced) condition. Whether it discloses generator-current unbalance specifically is unverified. Moderate weight on the protection element; unable to confirm anticipation of the unbalance-sensing element.

4. US 2,053,218 — Frese

• Full citation: Reverse current relay lock-out, US 2,053,218, Frese, Monitor Controller Co.
• Dates: priority/filing Mar. 2, 1935; granted/published Sept. 1, 1936.
• Description: A reverse-current relay with a lock-out feature — i.e., a relay that trips on a directionally abnormal current and is latched out until reset. This directly parallels two structural features of the '022 patent: (i) a relay that responds to abnormal current and opens a circuit, and (ii) the spring-biased latch 18 that retains the relay until manually reset, preventing reclosing.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Most pertinent to the mechanical/functional relay-lock-out and abnormal-current-trip aspects of claims 1, 4, and 5. Its "reverse current"/directional sensing is analogous but not identical to differential generator-current unbalance, so it more likely supports the lock-out subfeature than full anticipation. Moderate weight; relevant to the latch and trip-switch elements.

5. US 2,215,341 — Weybrew

• Full citation: Motor control system, US 2,215,341, Thelbert L. Weybrew, Westinghouse Electric & Mfg Co.
• Dates: priority/filing Feb. 4, 1939; granted/published Sept. 17, 1940.
• Description: An earlier Westinghouse motor control system by the same inventor (Weybrew) as the '022 patent. Same assignee family, same art of controlling electric motors/machines — the closest "same inventor / same assignee" reference of record. (Full text not retrieved.)
• Potential § 102 relevance: Because it shares the inventor and the motor-control subject matter, it is the reference most likely to disclose foundational elements of the claims 3–7 genus (plural traction motors, plural generators, switching, relay control), and possibly the differential/magnetically-opposed-coil concept of claims 6 and 7 if it uses differentially connected relay coils. Potentially the highest-value reference on the coil/relay structure claims — but I could not verify its disclosed circuitry, so this is flagged as unconfirmed.

---

Forward citation (NOT prior art)

• US 2,715,702 — Motor control systems for tension control, Westinghouse Electric Corp., filed Aug. 19, 1950, granted Aug. 16, 1955. This is a "Cited By" document (later Westinghouse work citing the '022 patent), so it is not available as prior art against the '022 patent and does not bear on § 102 of US 2,492,022. It is useful only as evidence of the patent's technological lineage.

---

Summary judgment on § 102

None of the five, on the face of the record I could retrieve, appears to squarely anticipate the distinguishing element of the '022 claims — a relay that responds to an unbalance in the generator currents (and in Fig. 2, differentially, so as to ignore motor-current unbalance) to open a paralleling switch. That element is what the patent presents over the cited art.

---

Verification notes / honesty caveats

• The target patent's bibliographic data, all seven claims, and its complete list of cited/forward references are taken verbatim from the authoritative patent text supplied (Google Patents fetch of US2492022A, 2026-09-30). This is the ground truth.
• I verified via web search: the title/assignee of US 771,347 (1904 sitemap) and the title, inventors (John Martin, Frederick H. Clough), assignee (General Electric), application number (US455187A), and dates of US 1,417,342, including a partial text passage on power flow between alternators.
• I was unable to retrieve full text for US 1,913,203, US 2,053,218, US 2,215,341, and US 2,715,702 before exhausting my search budget. Their descriptions above are inferred from their titles, dates, assignees, and technical context, and are explicitly flagged as such. I would not assert an actual § 102 anticipation rejection on any of them without reading the specifications, since § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every claim element as arranged.
• No patent numbers or identifiers were auto-corrected; e.g., "US2492022A" is treated as distinct from any similar number, and the citation numbers are reproduced exactly as recorded (771,347 / 1,417,342 / 1,913,203 / 2,053,218 / 2,215,341 / 2,715,702).

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references cited on the patent page. Let me pull details on each.

Now the remaining references.

Let me get details on the two references that returned no results.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 2,492,022 (“Control system”)

Assignee: Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Inventors: Thelbert L. Weybrew and Robert M. Strong · Filed: Aug. 2, 1945 (Ser. No. 608,582) · Issued: Dec. 20, 1949 · 7 claims

Record basis / caveats. This analysis uses (a) the full text of the patent-at-issue, (b) the “References Cited” list and citation metadata shown on the Google Patents page (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US2492022](/patent/US2492022)/en), and (c) search results retrieved this session. I was able to retrieve substantive text only for US1417342A and US2215341A. For US771347A, US1913203A, and US2053218A the searches returned no usable full text, so my treatment of those three rests on their titles, dates, assignees, and classification as listed on the patent page, and is flagged below. Any formal §103 rejection would have to be verified against the full specifications of those three. This is a technical analysis, not legal advice.

---

1. Governing framework and effective date

• The application was filed Aug. 2, 1945, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 governs, with the Graham v. John Deere factors: scope/content of the prior art, differences between the art and the claims, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex supplies the rationales (known technique improving a similar device; simple substitution of a known element; predictable combination of known elements).
• Critical scope-narrowing admission: the specification’s own background (§ beginning “On Diesel-electric locomotives having two or more power plants…”) admits as known: (i) paralleling generators on Diesel-electric locomotives to reduce wheel slip; (ii) shunt or differential-exciter generators whose voltage falls with load so that “the load placed on the two generators in parallel is evenly divided when the engine speeds are equal”; (iii) the problem of unequal division from unequal engine speed/power/excitation; and (iv) that “overload protection of the usual type, such as fuses or overcurrent relays, cannot be utilized.” Under In re Constant / SightSound, admitted prior art is available for §103. The claim environment is therefore admitted art; the only asserted contribution is the relay sensing and switch-trip arrangement.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

A person with a degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–5 years of experience in electric-traction and railway power control, familiar with: series traction motors; paralleled generator sets with shunt/differential-exciter fields; electro-mechanical relays (differential, reverse-current, overcurrent, equalizing, slip relays); and wheel-slip/stabilizing-current phenomena in Diesel-electric locomotives. This is a mature, electromechanical arts field in 1945.

---

3. The claims — element breakdown

Claim 6 is the broadest and most exposed claim — it omits any “predetermined amount” limitation and is defined almost entirely by what the relay responsive element is (differential) and is not responsive to (motor currents).

---

4. The cited prior art — what each reference supplies

US771347A — Wilson, “Control system for parallel lines” (Stanley Electric Mfg Co.; filed 1903‑11‑20; issued 1904‑10‑04)

(Title/date/assignee only; full text not retrieved.) On its face this is the oldest and most on-point reference for the environment: a control system for electrically parallel lines — the classic context in which equalizing/differential current relays and paralleling switches were used to make paralleled sources share load. Its title places it squarely in the same field of endeavor. Confidence in the specific circuitry: low; verify against the specification.

US1417342A — Martin et al., “Electric ship propulsion” (General Electric; filed 1921‑03‑24; issued 1922‑05‑23) — retrieved

Discloses plural prime movers driving alternators at different speeds, plural motors on propeller shafts, driven from those sources, and expressly recognizes the exchange-of-power problem between the paralleled machines (“…there is no assurance … power would not flow between them,” i.e., current circulating between parallel-connected machines). This is structural teaching of the claimed environment: multiple engine-driven generators, associated motors, and a paralleling relationship in which inter-machine current flows. (Its machines are AC/synchronous rather than the claimed DC series-traction arrangement — a difference that a PHOSITA would regard as an obvious design choice in a Diesel-electric locomotive.)

US1913203A — Kennedy, “Protective apparatus” (General Electric; filed 1930‑05‑27; issued 1933‑06‑06)

(Title/date/assignee only; full text not retrieved.) The title, assignee, and era indicate electro-mechanical protective relaying for dynamo-electric machines — i.e., an apparatus that senses an abnormal electrical condition among machines and operates a switch to disconnect a machine. This supplies the “relay means responsive to an unbalance … causing said switch to open” teaching. Confidence in the specific responsiveness to generator-current unbalance: low–moderate; the title alone establishes protective relaying but not the differential sensing.

US2053218A — Frese, “Reverse current relay lock-out” (Monitor Controller Co.; filed 1935‑03‑02; issued 1936‑09‑01)

(Title/date/assignee only; full text not retrieved.) Teaches a relay that trips and “locks out” — i.e., does not reclose and requires reset. This maps directly onto the spring-biased latch 18 of the patent-at-issue (“prevents the relay GPR from reclosing until reset by the operator”) and onto the signalling/indication function. Confidence: moderate.

US2215341A — Weybrew, “Motor control system” (Westinghouse Electric & Mfg Co.; filed 1939‑02‑04; issued 1940‑09‑17) — retrieved

This is the most technically substantive piece of art, and it is the earlier patent of co-inventor Weybrew. It discloses, in a traction-motor context:

1. A relay (slip relay SR) responsive to an unbalance/difference in the electrical condition of a pair of series traction motors and that interrupts power to the motors;
2. A second relay TR having two coils — a main operating coil 24 and a neutralizing coil 25 — i.e., magnetically opposed coils on one relay frame;
3. An adjustable threshold: the operating interval “may be adjusted by means of a biasing spring 31,” and the claim recites “means for controlling the current in the neutralizing coil to vary said time interval.”

Thus US2215341A supplies claim-limiting structures in isolation: an unbalance-sensing relay in a locomotive traction circuit; magnetically opposed coils (claim 7); and an adjustable bias spring / adjustable current threshold (claims 1 and 5).

§103 status note: Because US2215341A issued Sept. 17, 1940, more than one year before the Aug. 2, 1945 filing date, it is pre-AIA §102(b) prior art and cannot be sworn behind — even though Weybrew is a common inventor. It could also raise obviousness-type double-patenting questions, though its claims (slip-relay + time-delay) differ from the ’022 claims (parallel-generator current unbalance trip).

(For completeness: US2715702A, the only “Cited By,” issued 1955 — after the ’022 filing and is not prior art. The “Similar Documents” list includes post-1945 items such as US2501360A (1950) and US2773227A (1956) that likewise would not qualify.)

---

5. Graham factor 3 — the differences to be bridged

The cited art, taken together, supplies every element, leaving one genuine difference: none of the retrieved references places an unbalance-sensing relay in the generator leads of two paralleled engine-generator sets so that it trips the paralleling switch while being deliberately insensitive to motor-current unbalance due to wheel slip (particularly claim 6). Everything else — paralleled generators + motors, the isolating switch, an unbalance-responsive relay, a lock-out latch, an adjustable spring, and two magnetically opposed coils — appears in the art, and much of the environment is admitted in the ’022 specification itself.

---

6. Proposed combinations and motivation to combine

Combination A — Anticipates/suggests claims 1, 3, 4, 5: Wilson + Kennedy + Weybrew ’341

• Wilson (parallel-line control) = the paralleled-machine environment and a switch for establishing/removing the parallel relation.
• Kennedy (protective apparatus) = sensing an abnormal/unbalanced machine condition and operating a switch to disconnect the affected machine.
• Weybrew ’341 = the adjustable spring / adjustable operating threshold (“means for adjusting said relay means to vary the permissible difference,” claims 1 and 5).
• Motivation: All three are in the same field (paralleling and protection of dynamo-electric machines) and address the same problem the ’022 specification admits — unequal load division overheating one generator, where ordinary fuses/overcurrent relays are unusable because momentary overload is needed to start a train. KSR rationale: combining a known unbalance-sensing protective relay (Kennedy) with a known paralleling-switch arrangement (Wilson) and a known adjustable spring threshold (Weybrew ’341) to yield the predictable result of tripping on excessive load imbalance. No change in the principle of operation of any element; each does what it was known to do.

Combination B — Claims 2 and 7: Combination A + differential relay with two coils in magnetic opposition

• The “differential coils … responsive to the generator currents” of claim 2 and the “magnetically opposed coils” of claim 7 are the defining feature of a differential relay — the standard device for detecting a difference between two currents (the very thing a “control system for parallel lines,” US771347A, is titled to control).
• US2215341A (Weybrew) expressly shows two coils on one relay frame in magnetic opposition (main coil 24 vs. neutralizing coil 25) with an adjustable effect — direct structural teaching of claim 7’s “magnetically opposed coils.”
• Motivation: A differential/equalizing relay is the known, off-the-shelf technique for the stated objective of controlling “the division of load between parallel-connected generators” (’022, Objects). KSR, “known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.” Substitution of a known differential relay for a known overcurrent/equalizing relay would be an obvious design choice to a PHOSITA faced with the admitted inadequacy of overcurrent relays.

Combination C — Claim 6: Combination A/B + placement of differential sensing in the generator leads (insensitive to motor current)

Claim 6 adds only that the relay is differential and responsive to generator-current unbalance “but not in the motor currents.”

• That this negative functional limitation follows inherently from where the relay coils are connected is the heart of the obviousness case: a differential relay whose coils are placed in the generator output circuits (as opposed to Weybrew ’341’s slip relay SR, whose actuating coil is connected across/among the motors — “between the midpoint of a reactor 19 … and the midpoint of the series connection between the motors”) will, by construction, respond to generator-current difference and not to motor-current difference.
• Motivation: This is precisely the solution the ’022 specification itself frames as the desideratum — permitting the wheel-slip stabilizing current to flow through the relay without tripping, while still tripping on engine-caused sustained unbalance, and letting the relay be more sensitive at high currents by operating on a given current difference rather than a percentage difference. Selecting the generator leads as the sensing location to achieve insensitivity to wheel-slip currents is a predictable use of a known relay in a known circuit location (KSR; In re Kerkhoven-type predictable results).
• Frese (US2053218A) supplies the lock-out aspect — once tripped, the relay stays out and requires reset (the ’022 latch 18) — completing the practical realization of the claim.

Combination D — claim 6’s traction-motor context: Martin + Weybrew ’341 + Combination A/B

Martin teaches plural prime-mover-driven generators feeding plural motors on shafts with inter-machine current flow; Weybrew ’341 expressly addresses traction motors on a railway vehicle. Together they establish that applying the ’022 arrangement to a locomotive with plural traction motors and plural engine-generator sets was within the ordinary skill level.

---

7. Why a PHOSITA would have been motivated (summary of KSR rationales)

1. Same field / reasonably pertinent art. All five references lie in electric power distribution, machine protection, or electric-vehicle propulsion — the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
2. Known problem, admitted in the specification. Unequal load division between paralleled engine-generators, the inadequacy of fuses/overcurrent relays, and the need for momentary overload for starting are all expressly admitted. Motivation to solve a known problem is the strongest KSR showing.
3. Known technique for the known problem. Differential/equalizing relays were the textbook device for load sharing between parallel sources.
4. Simple substitution of one known element for another. Differential relay for overcurrent/equalizing relay, yielding predictable results (trip on imbalance, not on momentary overload).
5. Predictable use in a structurally similar device. Locating the sensing coils in the generator leads rather than across the motors.
6. Design choice / obvious to try. Adjusting spring tension (Weybrew ’341’s spring 31) to set the permissible imbalance is an adjustable parameter, which KSR and In re Applied Materials treat as within the skill of the art.
7. Common assignee and inventor. Four of the five references are Westinghouse/GE traction-power art, and US2215341A is Weybrew’s own earlier patent — evidence that the individual elements were known within the same design organization addressing the same class of problems.

---

8. Counterarguments / why some claims might survive

A careful examiner or a §103 rebuttal would press:

• Claim 6 (strongest non-obviousness candidate). The retrieved art (Weybrew ’341) points the unbalance sensing at the motor circuit and trips on wheel slip — the opposite sensing location from claim 6. There is a colorable argument that relocating the sensing to the generator leads, and deliberately making the relay blind to motor-current imbalance, is a non-obvious re-architecture, not a mere duplication, because it changes what the system is protecting against (sustained engine-excitation/engine-speed faults vs. transient wheel slip). Whether the negative limitation “but not in the motor currents” is a patentable difference turns on whether the cited differential relays, placed on generator leads, inherently exhibit it — a factual question requiring the full text of Wilson/Kennedy.
• Claim 6 lacks a “predetermined amount” limitation. Its breadth could cut against the patentee on obviousness (broader = more likely anticipated/suggested) but for the patentee on written-description/definiteness grounds — an issue distinct from §103.
• Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4). The specification asserts a concrete practical benefit — allowing stabilizing current during wheel slip while still protecting against generator overload, and sensitivity to a given current difference at high currents — which could be argued as unexpected/superior results and evidence of long-felt need (generator failures on multi-engine locomotives). These are the patentee’s best rebuttal tools; they would need evidentiary support (test data, industry adoption, copying) that is not present in the patent text.
• No teaching-away found in the retrieved art. Absent an express teaching that a generator-lead differential relay would defeat wheel-slip stabilization (i.e., that the stabilizing current would nuisance-trip), the teaching-away defense is weak — and the specification itself says the stabilizing current is “usually … relatively small and is less than the relay setting,” which undercuts the argument that a generator-lead relay could not work.

---

9. Bottom line

Overarching conclusion: Every element of claims 1–5 and 7 is supplied by the cited art (Wilson/Kennedy/Frese/Weybrew) combined with the environment the ’022 specification admits as known. Because the underlying problem — unequal load division among paralleled locomotive engine-generators, unsolvable by ordinary overcurrent protection — was known and the solution used known relay types (differential; opposed-coil; spring-biased; lock-out), a PHOSITA would have had both reason and reasonable expectation of success in combining them. Claim 6 is the one claim warranting careful, full-text verification, because its negative functional limitation (responsive to generator-current but not motor-current unbalance) is the sole feature not clearly shown in the references I could retrieve, and its fate depends on whether the cited differential relays, when connected in the generator leads, inherently possess that property.

Recommended verification steps before finalizing any §103 position: (1) obtain full texts of US771347A, US1913203A, and US2053218A to confirm the specific unbalance/differential sensing and lock-out teachings; and (2) compare the claims of US2215341A against the ’022 claims to assess obviousness-type double patenting given the common inventor (Weybrew) and common assignee (Westinghouse).