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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/22/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation is not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the signaling gateway module contains structure in the current figures and specification. However, the signaling gateway module in the claims need to contain physical structure if the applicant does not want to invoke 112(f).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn, however new grounds is presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: signaling gateway module in claims 10-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: signaling gateway module in specification 0159.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutschera (US 20190248395 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Hilleary (US 20190135317 A1, cited in a previous office action), Grisham (US 20050275513 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Kutschera discloses a system for train control, comprising: a detection control module configured for deployment on or near rail tracks in a rail network, the detection control module comprising: one or more antennas; one or more transceivers configured for transmitting and/or receiving wireless signals via the one or more antennas; and one or more circuits (Paragraphs 0051-0052; [signal box 40 is mapped to detection control module], [antenna 45 is mapped to antenna], [antenna 45 or radio module is mapped to transceiver], and [radio module is mapped to circuit]).
signaling gateway module comprising one or more circuits; wherein the signaling gateway module is configured to control a safety device deployed at a crossing on a rail track (Paragraphs 0006-0007; Signaling gateway module is mapped to stationary control device; safety device is mapped to a component);
obtaining a physical detection signal generated based on physical detection of at least a portion of a train on the rail tracks (Paragraph 0004; “The track-side sensor device used for this purpose can in principle be any sensor device known per se. This includes, for example, cameras or light barriers and other systems known per se for determining the speed of rail-borne vehicles. The track-side sensor device can preferably be designed as a two-channel wheel sensor or axle counter”).
Kutschera does not specifically state one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to provide redundant sensing using ultra-wideband (UWB) communication, and wherein providing the redundant sensing comprises; generating ranging-based control signals for controlling the safety device based on the range measurements; utilizing both of the physical detection signal and the ranging-based control signals for providing safety related functions at the crossing; the signaling gateway module is configured to control the safety device based on both of the physical detection signal and the ranging-based control signals.
However, Hilleary, which is also in vehicle control, teaches one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to provide redundant sensing using ultra-wideband (UWB) communication, and wherein providing the redundant sensing comprises (Paragraphs 0036-0038, 0158-0168);
generating ranging-based control signals for controlling the safety device based on the range measurements (Paragraphs 0036-0038);
utilizing both of the physical detection signal and the ranging-based control signals for providing safety related functions at the crossing (Paragraphs 0035-0038; “wireless train control systems such as Positive Train Control (PTC) and Incremental Train Control Systems (ICTS) may serve as the train prediction system 102 in lieu of, or in addition to a track circuit 103 for purposes of the railroad train detection system 102”);
the signaling gateway module is configured to control the safety device based on both of the physical detection signal and the ranging-based control signals (Paragraphs 0035-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with control modules providing redundant sensing using ultra-wideband (UWB) communication and controlling the safety device using both physical detection signals and ranging based control signals of Hilleary with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dangerous situations at a train crossing can be made safer with redundant control. Using both physical detection signals and multiple UWB communication to control a safety device makes a train crossing safer. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Hilleary as this achieves greater safety for people at a train crossing. As stated in Hilleary, “Aspects of inventive redundant, self-deterministic, failsafe object detection systems and methods are described herein that are particularly advantageous for railroad applications to detect presence, speed and heading information of a train as it enters, exits and travels through a predetermined section or zone of a railroad track. Redundant sensing capability, failsafe operation, and intelligent health assessment described below capably meets critical safety requirements of a railroad crossing” (Paragraph 0016).
Kutschera does not specifically state generating ultra-wideband (UWB) based ranging information, wherein the generating comprises; communicating signals with any train-based transceiver that comes within communication range, the signals comprising ultra-wideband (UWB) signals; communicated via direct UWB links between the train-based transceiver and one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module; obtaining, based on at least processing of received UWB signals, range measurements corresponding to a train traveling on the rail track.
However, Grisham, which is also in vehicle control, teaches generating ultra-wideband (UWB) based ranging information, wherein the generating comprises (Paragraphs 0053, 0164; “In particular, the impulse radio signal 910 transmitted between the transmitting impulse radio unit 902 and the receiving impulse radio unit 904 enables the controller 1110 to measure distances …The time position measurement can be used by the controller 1110 to measure the propagation delay and determine the link distance between the receiving impulse radio unit 904 and the locomotive 1102. Once, the distance is known and updated then the speed of the first object (e.g., locomotive 1102) can be determined by the controller 1110”);
communicating signals with any train-based transceiver that comes within communication range, the signals comprising ultra-wideband (UWB) signals (Paragraph 0053, 0164, Fig. 15 [elements 902 and 904]);
communicated via direct UWB links between the train-based transceiver and one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module (Paragraphs 0151, 0157, 0164, Figs. 13 and 15 [elements 902 and 904]);
obtaining, based on at least processing of received UWB signals, range measurements corresponding to a train traveling on the rail track (Paragraph 0053, 0164);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with obtaining UWB range measurements based on the detection control module or the signaling gateway module directly communicating with a train of Grisham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that UWB communication is used because the signals are more robust and fade less, providing a more reliable signal. Direct communication between the train and gate control modules is also possible, reducing the need for extra network towers. Range measurements are used to determine the distance a train is from the crossing, and when the train is nearby, the safety device is controlled to warn nearby people that the train is approaching. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Grisham as this improves the train and people’s safety. As stated in Grisham, “One of the advantages of impulse radio is its resistance to multipath fading effects” (Paragraphs 0106-0108). Also in Grisham, “the receiving impulse radio unit 904 interacts with a controller 1306 (shown inside the receiving impulse radio unit 904) on the railroad pole 1302, which makes sure that the person (e.g., operating the vehicle 1308) is alerted (step 1810) about the potentially dangerous situation. For instance, the controller 1306 can trigger a warning light 1310 or a retractable gate 1312 to warn a person within the vehicle 1308 that there is a locomotive 1102 approaching the railroad crossing 1304” (Paragraph 0160).Kutschera does not specifically state the signaling gateway module is configured to control timing of operation of the safety device based on the processing of the signals, wherein controlling the timing of operation of the safety device comprises; determining speed of the train based on the processing of the received signals; setting or adjusting the timing of operation of the safety device based on the speed of the train.
Regarding claim 4, Kutschera discloses the safety device includes a gate (Paragraphs 0001-0007).
Regarding claim 5, Kutschera discloses one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to generate at least one control signal for controlling or adjusting timing of the safety device (Paragraphs 0042-0044).
Regarding claim 6, Kutschera discloses a detection control module and a signaling gateway module.
Kutschera does not specifically state one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to: determine based on the range measurements train-related information associated with the train; generate or adjust the ranging-based control signals based on the train-related information.
However, Grisham, which is also in vehicle control, teaches one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to: determine based on the range measurements train-related information associated with the train (Paragraph 0164).
generate or adjust the ranging-based control signals based on the train-related information (Paragraphs 0160-0173; It is obvious that control signals are generated by the railroad crossing equipment to control the safety devices as this is how controllers communicate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with a detection control module or signaling gateway module determining range measurements of a train and generating ranging-based control signals of Grisham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that range measurements are used to determine the distance a train is from the crossing. When the train is nearby, the safety device is controlled by ranging-based control signals to warn nearby people that the train is approaching. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Grisham as this improves the train and people’s safety. As stated in Grisham, “the receiving impulse radio unit 904 interacts with a controller 1306 (shown inside the receiving impulse radio unit 904) on the railroad pole 1302, which makes sure that the person (e.g., operating the vehicle 1308) is alerted (step 1810) about the potentially dangerous situation. For instance, the controller 1306 can trigger a warning light 1310 or a retractable gate 1312 to warn a person within the vehicle 1308 that there is a locomotive 1102 approaching the railroad crossing 1304” (Paragraph 0160).
Regarding claim 7, Kutschera discloses one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to communicate, to the train, information relating to the safety device and/or operation of the safety device (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 8, Kutschera discloses one or both of the detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to communicate to one or more vehicles approaching the crossing information relating to the safety device and/or operation of the safety device (Paragraphs 0001-0007).
Regarding claim 9, Kutschera discloses the signaling gateway module further comprises: one or more antennas; and one or more transceivers configured for transmitting and/or receiving wireless signals via the one or more antennas (Paragraphs 0051-0052; [signal box 40 is mapped to signaling gateway module], [antenna 45 is mapped to antenna], and [antenna 45 or radio module is mapped to transceiver]);
the signaling gateway module is configured to communicate with one or both of the detection control module and the safety device using wireless signals (Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Claims 2-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutschera, Hilleary, Grisham, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lingvall (RU 2608789 C2, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 2, Kutschera discloses track-side sensors.
Kutschera does not specifically state one or more sensors attached to the rail track, wherein each sensor is configured to generate a coupling signal in response to the train traveling on the rail track, the coupling signal is communicated to the detection control module.
However, Lingvall, which is also in vehicle control, teaches one or more sensors attached to the rail track, wherein each sensor is configured to generate a coupling signal in response to the train traveling on the rail track, the coupling signal is communicated to the detection control module (Pages 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 8 Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with sensors attached to the rail track configured to generate coupling signals of a train and send them to the detection control module of Lingvall with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are certain sensors that physically detect trains traveling on the rail and then send signals to a control module to alert nearby people. Certain physical detection sensors are widely used and easy to install and operate. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Lingvall as this achieves an efficient method to detect a train. As stated in Lingvall, “Due to the mechanical and functional aspects of the system according to the invention, it is easy to install and operate, thereby reducing the costs associated with permanent or temporary warning systems. The advantageous design, therefore, makes it suitable also for remote railway crossings” (Page 4 Paragraph 7 – Page 5 Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kutschera discloses track-side sensors.
Kutschera does not specifically state the detection control module is configured to generate one or more output signals based on coupling signals received from the one or more sensors, wherein each output signal is generated based on one or more characteristics of at least one corresponding coupling signals.
However, Lingvall, which is also in vehicle control, teaches the detection control module is configured to generate one or more output signals based on coupling signals received from the one or more sensors, wherein each output signal is generated based on one or more characteristics of at least one corresponding coupling signals (Page 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 9 Paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with a detection control module generating output signals based on the coupling signals of Lingvall with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a detection control module is able to generate signals to secure a train crossing in order to improve safety for nearby people. The crossing able to be secured based on information such as speed, distance, and direction of the train. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Lingvall as this improves the safety and a train crossing. As stated in Lingvall, “According to an embodiment of the invention, the computer-implemented signal processor (31) is configured to generate a train alert signal (s10) containing a waiting time for presenting to a vehicle waiting to be able to cross a railway crossing. The waiting time may be the remaining time before the train passes the safety margin. The waiting time can be useful information for the driver and can prevent risky situations when the driver makes an attempt to cross the path, since there is no train in sight. The standby time indicator is an indication that the system is functioning and prompting the driver to wait until the train passes” (Page 13 Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 19, Kutschera discloses the detection control module is configured to communicate the physical detection signal based on the one or more indication signals (Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0051-0055).
Kutschera does not specifically state the detection control module is coupled to or in communication with a track-based detector that is deployed on the rail track; the track-based detector is configured to generate one or more indication signals in response to physically detecting the train traveling on the rail track.
However, Lingvall, which is also in vehicle control, teaches the detection control module is coupled to or in communication with a track-based detector that is deployed on the rail track (Page 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 8 Paragraph 3).
the track-based detector is configured to generate one or more indication signals in response to physically detecting the train traveling on the rail track (Page 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 8 Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with a track-based detector coupled to the detection control module and configured to generate signals of Lingvall with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that trains induce vibrations in the rail when moving on them. These vibrations can be detected by sensors and signals can be generated to activate a safety device. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Lingvall as this improves the safety of railroad crossings. As stated in Lingvall, “Thus, a concrete picture of these wave sequences can be detected at large distances (which increases the execution time)… As soon as train detection is confirmed by real-time analysis, the triggering signal will be immediately sent to the existing signal settings (flashing light, signal bell) or barrier controller” (Page 6 Paragraphs 3-6).
Claims 10-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutschera (US 20190248395 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Ghaly (US 20150307119 A1), Hilleary (US 20190135317 A1, cited in a previous office action), Grisham (US 20050275513 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 10, Kutschera discloses a system for train control, comprising: a plurality of detection control modules configured for deployment on or near rail tracks in a rail network, wherein each detection control module comprises: one or more antennas; one or more transceivers configured for transmitting and/or receiving wireless signals via the one or more antennas; and one or more circuits (Paragraphs 0051-0052 [signal box 40 is mapped to detection control module], [antenna 45 is mapped to antenna], [antenna 45 or radio module is mapped to transceiver], and [radio module is mapped to circuit]);
a signaling gateway module configured to control a safety device deployed at a crossing (Paragraphs 0006-0007; Signaling gateway module is mapped to stationary control device; safety device is mapped to a component);
the plurality of detection control modules comprises at least a first detection control module and a second detection control module; wherein the first detection control module is deployed physically closer to the crossing on a rail track than a second detection control module (Paragraphs 0039-0041 [local control component 50 is mapped to first detection control module] [Track-side sensor device 80 is mapped to second detection control module]; Fig. 1);
the second detection control module is configured to: generate in response to physical detection of a train travelling on the rail track, a physical detection signal (Paragraphs 0051-0055);
communicate the physical detection signal to the first detection control module (Paragraphs 0051-0055, Figs. 1 and 2).
Kutschera does not specifically state the physical detection signal is communicated via a direct peer- to-peer wireless link between the first detection control module and the second detection control module; communicating to the signaling gateway module, via a direct peer-to-peer wireless link between the first detection control module and the signaling gateway module, either both of the physical detection signal and the range measurements, or information based on assessing both of the physical detection signal and the range measurements.
However, Ghaly teaches the physical detection signal is communicated via a direct peer- to-peer wireless link between the first detection control module and the second detection control module (Paragraphs 0101-0104; “once a train is identified to an ABSU, its signature will propagate along the line via ABSU to ABSU communication”);
communicating to the signaling gateway module, via a direct peer-to-peer wireless link between the first detection control module and the signaling gateway module, either both of the physical detection signal and the range measurements, or information based on assessing both of the physical detection signal and the range measurements (Paragraphs 0101-0104; “the ABSU 2, and processes input signals from the axle counter 6, the transponder antenna 14, the automatic train stop 12, as well as data received from the data radio data module 16. Also, the processor module 4 generates data and/or control signals for the active transponder 8, the wayside signal 10, the automatic train stop 12, as well as data to be transmitted via the data radio module 16”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with communicating via direct peer-to-peer wireless link between the first and second detection control modules, and communicating directly between the first detection control module and the signaling gateway module, of Ghaly with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kutschera and Ghaly are both in the field of train control systems. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety (Ghaly – Paragraph 0104).
Kutschera does not specifically state the first detection control module is configured to provide redundant sensing using ultra-wideband (UWB) communication, and wherein providing the redundant sensing comprises; the range measurements and the physical detection signal are both used in controlling the safety device deployed at the crossing.
However, Hilleary, which is also in vehicle control, teaches the first detection control module is configured to provide redundant sensing using ultra-wideband (UWB) communication, and wherein providing the redundant sensing comprises (Paragraphs 0036-0038, Paragraphs 0158-0168);
the range measurements and the physical detection signal are both used in controlling the safety device deployed at the crossing (Paragraphs 0035-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with control modules providing redundant sensing using ultra-wideband (UWB) communication and controlling the safety device using both physical detection signals and ranging based control signals of Hilleary with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dangerous situations at a train crossing can be made safer with redundant control. Using both physical detection signals and multiple UWB communication to control a safety device makes a train crossing safer. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Hilleary as this achieves greater safety for people at a train crossing. As stated in Hilleary, “Aspects of inventive redundant, self-deterministic, failsafe object detection systems and methods are described herein that are particularly advantageous for railroad applications to detect presence, speed and heading information of a train as it enters, exits and travels through a predetermined section or zone of a railroad track. Redundant sensing capability, failsafe operation, and intelligent health assessment described below capably meets critical safety requirements of a railroad crossing” (Paragraph 0016).
Kutschera does not specifically state communicating signals with any train-based transceiver that comes within communication range, the signals comprising ultra-wideband (UWB) signals; communicated via direct UWB links between the train-based transceiver and the first detection control module; obtaining based on at least processing of received UWB signals range measurements corresponding to a train traveling on the rail track.
However, Grisham, which is also in vehicle control, teaches communicating signals with any train-based transceiver that comes within communication range, the signals comprising ultra-wideband (UWB) signals (Paragraph 0053, 0164, Fig. 15 [elements 902 and 904]);
communicated via direct UWB links between the train-based transceiver and the first detection control module (Paragraphs 0151, 0157, 0164, Figs. 13 and 15 [elements 902 and 904]);
obtaining, based on at least processing of received UWB signals, range measurements corresponding to the train traveling on the rail track (Paragraph 0053, 0164);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with obtaining UWB range measurements based on the detection control module or the signaling gateway module directly communicating with a train of Grisham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that UWB communication is used because the signals are more robust and fade less, providing a more reliable signal. Direct communication between the train and gate control modules is also possible, reducing the need for extra network towers. Range measurements are used to determine the distance a train is from the crossing, and when the train is nearby, the safety device is controlled to warn nearby people that the train is approaching. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Grisham as this improves the train and people’s safety. As stated in Grisham, “One of the advantages of impulse radio is its resistance to multipath fading effects” (Paragraphs 0106-0108). Also in Grisham, “the receiving impulse radio unit 904 interacts with a controller 1306 (shown inside the receiving impulse radio unit 904) on the railroad pole 1302, which makes sure that the person (e.g., operating the vehicle 1308) is alerted (step 1810) about the potentially dangerous situation. For instance, the controller 1306 can trigger a warning light 1310 or a retractable gate 1312 to warn a person within the vehicle 1308 that there is a locomotive 1102 approaching the railroad crossing 1304” (Paragraph 0160).
Regarding claim 11, Kutschera discloses a signaling gateway module configured to control the safety device.
Kutschera does not specifically state one or both of the signaling gateway module and the first detection control module are configured to generate control signals for controlling safety device based on the range measurements and the physical detection signal.
However, Hilleary, which is also in vehicle control, teaches one or both of the signaling gateway module and the first detection control module are configured to generate control signals for controlling safety device based on the range measurements and the physical detection signal (Paragraphs 0035-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with the signaling gateway module or first detection control module controlling the safety device using both physical detection signals and range measurements of Hilleary with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dangerous situations at a train crossing can be made safer with redundant control. Using both physical detection signals and range measurements to control a safety device makes a train crossing safer. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Hilleary as this achieves greater safety for people at a train crossing. As stated in Hilleary, “Aspects of inventive redundant, self-deterministic, failsafe object detection systems and methods are described herein that are particularly advantageous for railroad applications to detect presence, speed and heading information of a train as it enters, exits and travels through a predetermined section or zone of a railroad track. Redundant sensing capability, failsafe operation, and intelligent health assessment described below capably meets critical safety requirements of a railroad crossing” (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 12, Kutschera discloses one or both of the first detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to generate at least one control signal for controlling or adjusting timing of the safety device (Paragraphs 0042-0044).
Regarding claim 13, Kutschera discloses a first detection control module and a signaling gateway module.
Kutschera does not specifically state one or both of the first detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to: determine based on the range measurements train-related information associated with the train; generate or adjust the control signals based on the train-related information.
However, Grisham, which is also in vehicle control, teaches one or both of the first detection control module and the signaling gateway module are configured to: determine based on the range measurements train-related information associated with the train (Paragraph 0164);
generate or adjust the control signals based on the train-related information (Paragraphs 0160-0173).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with a first detection control module or signaling gateway module determining range measurements of a train and generating control signals of Grisham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that range measurements are used to determine the distance a train is from the crossing. When the train is nearby, the safety device is controlled by ranging-based control signals to warn nearby people that the train is approaching. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Grisham as this improves the train and people’s safety. As stated in Grisham, “the receiving impulse radio unit 904 interacts with a controller 1306 (shown inside the receiving impulse radio unit 904) on the railroad pole 1302, which makes sure that the person (e.g., operating the vehicle 1308) is alerted (step 1810) about the potentially dangerous situation. For instance, the controller 1306 can trigger a warning light 1310 or a retractable gate 1312 to warn a person within the vehicle 1308 that there is a locomotive 1102 approaching the railroad crossing 1304” (Paragraph 0160).
Regarding claim 14, Kutschera discloses the signaling gateway module further comprises: one or more antennas; and one or more transceivers configured for transmitting and/or receiving wireless signals via the one or more antennas (Paragraphs 0051-0052 [signal box 40 is mapped to signaling gateway module], [antenna 45 is mapped to antenna], and [antenna 45 or radio module is mapped to transceiver]);
the signaling gateway module is configured to communicate with one or both of the first detection control module and the safety gate using wireless signals (Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 15, Kutschera discloses the first detection control module is configured to communicate, to the train, information relating to the safety device and/or operation of the safety device (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 18, Kutschera discloses the safety device includes a gate (Paragraphs 0001-0007).
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutschera, Ghaly, Hilleary, and Grisham, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lingvall (RU 2608789 C2, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claims 16-17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 2-3. The system taught/disclosed in claims 16-17 can be clearly performed with the system of claims 2-3. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Kutschera discloses the physical detection is based on receiving the one or more signals from the track-based detector (Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0051-0055).
Kutschera does not specifically state the second detection control module is coupled to or in communication with a track-based detector that is deployed on the rail track; the track-based detector is configured to generate one or more signals in response to physically detecting the train traveling on the rail track.
However, Lingvall, which is also in vehicle control, teaches the second detection control module is coupled to or in communication with a track-based detector that is deployed on the rail track (Page 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 8 Paragraph 3);
the track-based detector is configured to generate one or more signals in response to physically detecting the train traveling on the rail track (Page 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 8 Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with a track-based detector coupled to the second detection control module and configured to generate signals of Lingvall with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that trains induce vibrations in the rail when moving on them. These vibrations can be detected by sensors and signals can be generated to activate a safety device. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Lingvall as this improves the safety of railroad crossings. As stated in Lingvall, “Thus, a concrete picture of these wave sequences can be detected at large distances (which increases the execution time)… As soon as train detection is confirmed by real-time analysis, the triggering signal will be immediately sent to the existing signal settings (flashing light, signal bell) or barrier controller” (Page 6 Paragraphs 3-6).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutschera, Hilleary, and Grisham, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroyuki (JP 2011105117 A, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 21, Kutschera discloses a train and safety device.
Kutschera does not specifically state UWB signals.
However, Grisham teaches UWB signals (Paragraphs 0053, 0164, Fig. 15 [elements 902 and 904]; “In particular, the impulse radio signal 910 transmitted between the transmitting impulse radio unit 902 and the receiving impulse radio unit 904 enables the controller 1110 to measure distances”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with UWB signals of Grisham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that UWB communication is used because the signals are more robust and fade less, providing a more reliable signal. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Grisham as this improves the train and people’s safety. As stated in Grisham, “One of the advantages of impulse radio is its resistance to multipath fading effects” (Paragraphs 0106-0108).
Kutschera does not specifically state the signaling gateway module is configured to control timing of operation of the safety device based on the processing of the received signals from the train, and wherein controlling the timing of operation of the safety device comprises; determining a speed of the train based on the processing of the received signals from the train; setting or adjusting the timing of operation of the safety device based on the speed of the train.
However, Hiroyuki teaches the signaling gateway module is configured to control timing of operation of the safety device based on the processing of the received signals from the train, and wherein controlling the timing of operation of the safety device comprises (Page 9 Paragraph 3 – Page 10 Paragraph 3, Fig. 1);
determining a speed of the train based on the processing of the received signals from the train (Page 9 Paragraph 3 – Page 10 Paragraph 3);
setting or adjusting the timing of operation of the safety device based on the speed of the train (Page 9 Paragraph 3 – Page 10 Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with determining the speed of the train and adjusting timing of the safety device based on the speed of Hiroyuki with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a crossing gate should be put down when the train is going to cross an intersection. The timing of the gate depends on when the train is going to cross the intersection, or the speed of the train. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Hiroyuki as this ensures safety at a railroad crossing. As stated in Hiroyuki, “the output of the railroad crossing warning control device 21 is also taken into the wireless level crossing warning control devices 52, 62, and 72 to ensure safety” (Page 14 Paragraph 5 – Page 15 Paragraph 1).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutschera, Ghaly, Hilleary, and Grisham, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hiroyuki (JP 2011105117 A, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 22, Kutschera discloses a train and safety device.
Kutschera does not specifically state UWB signals.
However, Grisham teaches UWB signals (Paragraphs 0053, 0164, Fig. 15 [elements 902 and 904]; “In particular, the impulse radio signal 910 transmitted between the transmitting impulse radio unit 902 and the receiving impulse radio unit 904 enables the controller 1110 to measure distances”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with UWB signals of Grisham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that UWB communication is used because the signals are more robust and fade less, providing a more reliable signal. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Grisham as this improves the train and people’s safety. As stated in Grisham, “One of the advantages of impulse radio is its resistance to multipath fading effects” (Paragraphs 0106-0108).
Kutschera does not specifically state the signaling gateway module is configured to control timing of operation of the safety device based on the processing of the signals, wherein controlling the timing of operation of the safety device comprises; determining a speed of the train based on the processing of the received signals; setting or adjusting the timing of operation of the safety device based on the speed of the train.
However, Hiroyuki teaches the signaling gateway module is configured to control timing of operation of the safety device based on the processing of the signals, wherein controlling the timing of operation of the safety device comprises (Page 9 Paragraph 3 – Page 10 Paragraph 3, Fig. 1);
determining a speed of the train based on the processing of the received signals (Page 9 Paragraph 3 – Page 10 Paragraph 3);
setting or adjusting the timing of operation of the safety device based on the speed of the train (Page 9 Paragraph 3 – Page 10 Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kutschera with determining the speed of the train and adjusting timing of the safety device based on the speed of Hiroyuki with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a crossing gate should be put down when the train is going to cross an intersection. The timing of the gate depends on when the train is going to cross the intersection, or the speed of the train. One would have been motivated to combine Kutschera with Hiroyuki as this ensures safety at a railroad crossing. As stated in Hiroyuki, “the output of the railroad crossing warning control device 21 is also taken into the wireless level crossing warning control devices 52, 62, and 72 to ensure safety” (Page 14 Paragraph 5 – Page 15 Paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights