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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 23, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al (WO 2016011274) in view of Mroue (UWB radar for railway fall on track object detection and identification).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Engel teaches a receiver configured for receiving signals; and wherein the plurality of detection devices is configured for transmitting signals into an area in proximity to a platform, the area comprising one or more tracks (para 47, “600, 600a may comprise an upper laser scanner 606 and a lower laser scanner 608”); and one or more circuits configured to: process received signals (para 32, “Scanner data may be processed by the system 100, 100a and the presence of an object of a certain size, speed, and distance may be identified and safety measures may be taken by the system 100,”), detect based on the echoes of the transmitted signals when an object is present within the area (para 38) and assess the object, wherein assessing the object comprises: determining when the object represents an intrusion within the area, wherein the determining comprises applying one or more checks to protect against false detection based on predetermined false detection criteria or information (para 29, “a false alarm caused by a small object such as a piece of paper or small debris that may cause no risk of actual harm to the train” and para 32, “A 3D scanner may comprise a device that analyses a real-world object or environment to collect data on its shape and/ or its appearance. The collected data can then be used to construct digital three-dimensional models by the system 100, 100a. As used herein, the terms "laser" and "scanner" may generally be used interchangeably and may refer to a laser scanner, a device that detects the size, speed, and location of an object, or the like when the object represents an intrusion, determining an action responsive to the determination that the object represents an intrusion (para 36, “The software may analyze message(s) or indication(s) that a track intrusion, or the like, has been detected by the system 100, 100a, and perform a number of security measures, or corrective or preventative actions, to attempt to avoid and/ or minimize harm that may ensue if a collision occurs”); and control or adjust the detecting of objects based on operation of trains on the one or more tracks, wherein the controlling or adjusting comprises disabling the detecting of objects based on a determination that a train is entering a predefined detection zone associated with the plurality of detection devices (para 29, “ a track intrusion detection system 100, 100a in accordance with exemplary embodiments may be designed to filter out other trains (moving or stationary), small objects (for example, those less than twelve to fifteen inches, or the like, and small animals (such as rodents, birds, or the like) and temporarily disable the intrusion detection system in zones through which the train is traveling”).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Engel does not teach the signals being UWB signals and the processing comprising determining received UWB signals corresponding to echoes of transmitted UWB signals transmitted by the plurality of detection devices. Mroue teaches the signals being UWB signals and the processing comprising determining received UWB signals corresponding to echoes of transmitted UWB signals transmitted by the plurality of detection devices (Page 1, Par 1). It would have been obvious to modify Engel to include the signals being UWB signals and the processing comprising determining received UWB signals corresponding to echoes of transmitted UWB signals transmitted by the plurality of detection devices because it is merely a substitution of a well-known signal used to detect an obstacle on train tracks of Mroue in the obstacle detection device of Engel to yield a predictable obstacle detection device.
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Engel teaches a system for platform intrusion detection (abs and fig 3), the system comprising: a plurality of detection devices (para 26 and fig 3, items 606 and 608), wherein each detection device comprises one or both of: a transmitter, configured for transmitting signals; and a receiver, the one or more circuits are configured to determine that the object represents an obstruction based on a determination that the object obstructs at least one of the one or more tracks (abstract and para 36, “a track intrusion detection system 100, 100a in accordance with exemplary embodiments is in use, if an object greater than a certain size (for example, approximately 8" to 24") passes through or remains within the sensing range of either the upper scanner 106 and/ or lower scanner 108 for a certain period of time”).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Engel teaches the one or more circuits are configured to generate an alert based on the determination that the object represents an intrusion within the area the one or more circuits are configured to wirelessly communicate the alert to one or both: of a train approaching the platform on one of the one or more tracks, and a wayside device disposes on or near one of the one or more tracks (paragraph 55 “electronic message alerts. Electronic message alerts may comprise, electronic communications such as wired or wireless messages, text messages, video messages, audio messages, and/ or the like, and may be transmitted to an administrator”).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Engel teaches the one or more circuits are configured to wirelessly communicate the alert to one or both: of a train approaching the platform on one of the one or more tracks, and a wayside device disposes on or near one of the one or more tracks (paragraph 55 “electronic message alerts. Electronic message alerts may comprise, electronic communications such as wired or wireless messages, text messages, video messages, audio messages, and/ or the like, and may be transmitted to an administrator”).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Engel teaches the one or more circuits are configured to determine a size of the object, and wherein determining when the object represents an intrusion comprises assessing the size of the objects based on one or more size related parameters for intrusion detection based on one or more size related parameters for intrusion detection (abstract and para 36, “a track intrusion detection system 100, 100a in accordance with exemplary embodiments is in use, if an object greater than a certain size (for example, approximately 8" to 24") passes through or remains within the sensing range of either the upper scanner 106 and/ or lower scanner 108 for a certain period of time”).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Engel teaches the one or more circuits are configured to detect, based on received signals, movement associated with the object associated with the object (paragraph 39” simultaneously detect an object of a certain size moving at a predetermined speed (for example, over 20 mph), the system 100, 100a may recognize the object as a train, or the like, and the system 100, 100a may disable the track intrusion detection functionality while the train is moving through the zones of the system”).
Regarding claim 21 and 23, Engel teaches the one or more circuits are configured to determine parameters or characteristics associated with the object (paragraph 9, “a laser scanner or an infrared beam device adapted to detect the size, speed and distance of an object within the first detection layer or the second detection layer”).
Regarding claim 25 and 29, Engel teaches the plurality of detection devices are placed at set distances from one another, and wherein spacing between detection devices is determined or set to meet one or more predetermined coverage criteria coverage criteria (fig 1, items 106 and 108 and para 32).
Regarding claim 26 and 30, Engel teaches operation of the plurality of detection devices is configured based on one or more performance criteria, one or more performance criteria comprising at least one of field of view, managing false detection, and use of baseline measurement detection, and use of baseline measurement (paragraph 29, “A system 100, 100a may also be adapted to prevent false alarms and/ or any injuries or harm that may be caused by a false alarm”).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 12, 19, 27-28, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Mroue as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sheardown (US 20110006912).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Sheardown teaches the one or more circuits are configured to identity a type corresponding to each object (para 38, “the transceivers 80 may each be wired to a communication network backbone 110 (hereinafter "CNB"). The CNB 110 may be an Ethernet type, Optic Fiber type or any other network backbone known in the art. When the device 70 is detected by the transceiver 80, information from the device 70 is being transmitted to the transceiver 80. Information typically includes an identification of the track worker 40 along with other relevant information such as demographic and/or personal information. The information from the device 70 are then tagged with information about the transceivers 80 (that are reading the device 70) prior to being sent as the track worker information 60A to the CIPC 50”). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the one or more circuits are configured to identity a type corresponding to each object the one or more circuits are configured to identity a type corresponding to each object because it would allow the device to determine if an obstacle on the train tracks is large or small.
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Sheardown teaches the one or more circuits are configured for detecting objects within a specified maximum range (paragraph 49 “Each transceiver 80 has a certain range of coverage on either side of the rail road 20, and based on the direction of approach of a rail vehicle, the CIPC 50 determines the closest possible distance from the rail vehicle to the edge of its coverage area’). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the one or more circuits are configured for detecting objects within a specified maximum range because it is merely a combination of element of the obstacle detection device of Engel and Mroue to yield a predictable obstacle detection device.
Regarding claim 27 and 31, Sheardown teaches the one or more circuits are configured for detecting objects within a specified minimum range (paragraph 33 “Critical distance may be defined as the minimum distance of separation between the track worker and the approaching rail vehicle so that the track worker may safety clear the path of the rail vehicle’; paragraph [0049]: “Each transceiver 80 has a certain range of coverage on either side of the rail road 20, and based on the direction of approach of a rail vehicle, the CIPC 50 determines the closest possible distance from the rail vehicle to the edge of its coverage area’). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the one or more circuits are configured for detecting objects within a specified minimum range because it is merely a combination of element of the obstacle detection device of Engel and Mroue to yield a predictable obstacle detection device.
Regarding claim 28 and 32, Sheardown teaches the one or more circuits are configured for set or adjust the minimum range to ignore objects within a pre-determined distance relative to the platform a pre-determined distance (paragraph 33 “Critical distance may be defined as the minimum distance of separation between the track worker and the approaching rail vehicle so that the track worker may safety clear the path of the rail vehicle’, paragraph [0049]: “Each transceiver 80 has a certain range of coverage on either side of the rail road 20, and based on the direction of approach of a rail vehicle, the CIPC 50 determines the closest possible distance from the rail vehicle to the edge of its coverage area”). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the one or more circuits are configured for set or adjust the minimum range to ignore objects within a pre-determined distance relative to the platform a pre-determined distance because it is merely a combination of element of the obstacle detection device of Engel and Mroue to yield a predictable obstacle detection device.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Mroue in view of Sheardown as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Pernstal et al (US 20180306901).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Pernstal teaches the one or more circuits are configured to identity whether the object comprises a person or a physical foreign object (para 96, “radar system 10 is capable of being used in many fields of application, for example: [0097] (i) for monitoring safety-critical areas, for example railway level-crossings; [0098] (ii) for intruder alarm systems, for example for detecting unauthorized personnel; [0099] (iii) for obstacle detection in automated agricultural equipment, for example automated combine harvesters, ploughing equipment, automated fruit picking apparatus”). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue in view of Sheardown to include the one or more circuits are configured to identity whether the object comprises a person or a physical foreign object because it would allow the device to determine if an obstacle on the train tracks is large or small.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Mroue as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Fullerton (US 20070182618).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Fullerton teaches the one or more circuits are configured to configure or adjust the alert based on parameters or characteristics associated with the object (paragraph 69 “In a preferred embodiment, processor 206 uses the radar images generated in step 304 to detect motion and to track moving objects. In many instances, processor 206 need only detect movement in a given area. In the aforementioned building security environment, movement detected in a restricted area triggers an alarm condition. Other alarm conditions require additional processing to distinguish between different types of movement. For instance, movement in the vicinity of a window should trigger an alarm condition if the object approached the window from outside 116, but not if the object approached from inside 114. Processor 206 can distinguish between these two types of movement by tracking moving objects over time”). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the one or more circuits are configured to configure or adjust the alert based on parameters or characteristics associated with the object because it would allow the device to alert the operator a train was coming.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Mroue as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Fullerton (US 20070182618).
Regarding claim 22 and 24, Fullerton teaches the one or more circuits are configured to determine or adjust at least one action responsive to the determination that the object represents an intrusion based on the parameters or characteristics associated with the object paragraph 7 “As used herein, selectivity refers to an intrusion detection system's ability to distinguish movement on some basis, such as where the movement is occurring, how fast an object is moving, or the path that an object is moving along’, paragraph [0034]: “An object on the outside would have to cross the inside boundary to trigger an entry alarm; whereas, an object on the inside would have to cross the outside boundary to trigger an exit alarm’). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the one or more circuits are configured to determine or adjust at least one action responsive to the determination that the object represents an intrusion based on the parameters or characteristics associated with the object because stopping the train before it hits an obstacle could avoid an accident.
Claim(s) 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Mroue as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chung et al (US 20160046308).
Regarding claim 33 and 34, Chung teaches the action comprises, when dealing with at least one object, triggering automatic train control based action that is applied directly in a train approaching the platform on one of the one or more tracks (para 69). It would have been obvious to modify Engel in view of Mroue to include the action comprises, when dealing with at least one object, triggering automatic train control based action that is applied directly in a train approaching the platform on one of the one or more tracks because stopping the train before it hits an obstacle could avoid an accident.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Engel does not teach “object represents an intrusion; and control or adjust the detecting of objects based on operation of trains on the one or more tracks, wherein the controlling or adjusting comprises disabling the detecting of objects based on a determination that a train is entering a predefined detection zone associated with the plurality of detection devices."
Response: paragraph 29 of Engel states, “a track intrusion detection system 100, 100a in accordance with exemplary embodiments may be designed to filter out other trains (moving or stationary), small objects (for example, those less than twelve to fifteen inches, or the like, and small animals (such as rodents, birds, or the like) and temporarily disable the intrusion detection system in zones through which the train is traveling” indicating that the detection system can be turned off in zone where a train is entering.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648