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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to applicant’s filing dated 11/06/2025. Claims 1, 11 and 21 have been amended. Claims 3 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-26 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s filing dated 11/06/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited of record fails to explicitly disclose “calculating, by the monitoring device, a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sawley teaches evaluating rail vehicle hunting stability by analyzing measured lateral acceleration behavior as the rail vehicle travels along straight track. Sawley’s analysis is based on lateral dynamic response evaluated over intervals of vehicle motion, rather than on isolated acceleration samples, in order to identify the onset of hunting instability. The claim does not require any particular or unconventional statistical technique beyond calculating a statistical measure that characterizes variability of lateral acceleration data over a running window. A running standard deviation is a standard statistical representation of variability in oscillatory acceleration signals and corresponds directly to Sawley’s disclosed evaluation of lateral acceleration behavior over successive intervals of vehicle travel. Further, Sawley’s vehicle stability as a function of travel along the track, such that calculating the running standard deviation over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled is consistent with Sawley’s distance-based analysis of lateral dynamic response. The claim does not require express recitation of a distance-based windowing mechanism beyond evaluating acceleration data over traveled distance, which Sawley teaches.
Examiner notes independent claims 11 and 21 are rejected under same rationale as above.
For at least the above, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 11/06/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 1 has been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1,
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and cannot be performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 2019 Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. The claims are directed to detecting a hunting condition of a railcar axle. The claims disclose the steps of obtaining, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, determining a plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, providing an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, storing the acceleration data as a plurality of accelerometer readings, obtaining a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, calculating a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replacing, the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading. Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to “mental process” and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. Furthermore, using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract ideas does not make it less abstract. This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to examiner to group the abstract idea under “mental process” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution, but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -see MPEP 2106.05(f). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 2019 Revised Guidance. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea under step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The limitations do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application. In making the determination of if the claimed idea is significantly more, the Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
For at least the above the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11 and 21 recites the abstract idea concept of a computer-implemented method (Claim 1), a device (claim 11) and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 21) of detecting a hunting condition of a railcar axle. This abstract idea is described in at least claims 1, 11 and 21 by, obtaining, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, determining a plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, providing an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, storing the acceleration data as a plurality of accelerometer readings, obtaining a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, calculating a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replacing, the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading. are considered mental process steps. The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
The limitations of obtaining, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, determining a plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, providing an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, and calculating a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar as drafted, are process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting obtaining, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
The claim recite additional elements to the abstract idea. However, these additional elements fails to integrate into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites, by a monitoring device attached to a railcar and from an accelerometer of the monitoring device, by the monitoring device and to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device. Which is mere data gathering that is simply employed as a tool to collect information and reporting results, which is insignificant extra solution activity as the step simply gathers data necessary to perform the abstract idea. These additional steps amount necessary data gathering and reporting results, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering or data output. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually or in combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of by a monitoring device attached to a railcar and from an accelerometer of the monitoring device, by the monitoring device and to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra- solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood routine and convention activity in the field. The additional limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Examiner relies on what the courts have recognized, or those or ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data, Symantec 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (Sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). In this case, the use of devices and networks is described at a high level of generality, or as an insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot be considered as an improvement to network/computer technology. Further the mere collection of data or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as itis here). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-20 and 22-26 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-20 and 22-26 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-26 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birch et al., US 20180222504 A1, in view of Sawley K et al., "The effect of hollow-worn wheels on vehicle stability in straight track", vol. 258, 1 March 2005, Pages 1100-1108, hereinafter referred to as Birch and Sawley, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Birch discloses a computer-implemented method of detecting a hunting condition of a railcar axle, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a monitoring device attached to a railcar and from an accelerometer of the monitoring device, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar (obtaining, in near real time, measurements from the sensor array while the railcar is operating – See at least abstract. The sensors may be configured to provide constant measurements or measurements at set intervals of time to the sensor data processing unit. Examples of sensors that could be utilized on the railcar include, but are not limited to, an accelerometer. In a further example, a position of the sensor within the railcar or within the train within may be captured or tracked by the sensor or within a data system– See at least ¶18);
determining, by the monitoring device and based on the acceleration data, a plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings (The baseline data set may also be created by having the sensor data processing unit analyze a gathered set of measurement data. If the gathered set of data is all within a predetermined range of standard deviation, then the set may be considered anomaly free and used as the baseline data – See at least ¶27).
Birch fails to explicitly disclose based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, providing, by the monitoring device and to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device, an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition; wherein the method further comprises: storing, by the monitoring device and in a data array of the monitoring device, the acceleration data as a plurality of accelerometer readings; and obtaining, by the monitoring device and from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; calculating, by the monitoring device, a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replacing, by the monitoring device, the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading.
However, Sawley teaches:
based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, providing, by the monitoring device and to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device, an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph);
storing, by the monitoring device and in a data array of the monitoring device, the acceleration data as a plurality of accelerometer readings; and obtaining, by the monitoring device and from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; calculating, by the monitoring device, a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replacing, by the monitoring device, the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g. Lateral axle acceleration. The same definition of hunting was applied as for lateral car body acceleration. Lateral axle displacement. Hunting was defined to occur when axle displacement over at least 50% of the simulated track length allowed flange-to-flange oscillation – See at least page 1104, First Paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of storing, by the monitoring device and in a data array of the monitoring device, the acceleration data as a plurality of accelerometer readings; and obtaining, by the monitoring device and from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; calculating, by the monitoring device, a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replacing, by the monitoring device, the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach filtering, by the monitoring device and using a low-pass filter, the acceleration data received from the accelerometer.
However, Sawley teaches filtering, by the monitoring device and using a low-pass filter, the acceleration data received from the accelerometer (Test speed was increased on each subsequent run until car body accelerations exceeded Chapter XI limits. Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15 Hz – See at least page 1105, “Track Tests Section”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of filtering, by the monitoring device and using a low-pass filter, the acceleration data received from the accelerometer, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach providing, by the monitoring device and to the remote device, summary data associated with movement of the railcar, wherein the summary data comprises one or more of: an indication of a speed of the railcar; an indication of a latitude and a longitude of the railcar; an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; an indication of a maximum standard deviation of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; or an indication of a percentage of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying the standard deviation threshold.
However, Sawley teaches providing, by the monitoring device and to the remote device, summary data associated with movement of the railcar, wherein the summary data comprises one or more of: an indication of a speed of the railcar (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least 1104, “First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of providing, by the monitoring device and to the remote device, summary data associated with movement of the railcar, wherein the summary data comprises one or more of: an indication of a speed of the railcar, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the obtaining the acceleration data is based on a speed of the railcar satisfying a speed threshold.
However, Sawley teaches wherein the obtaining the acceleration data is based on a speed of the railcar satisfying a speed threshold (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least 1104, “First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of wherein the obtaining the acceleration data is based on a speed of the railcar satisfying a speed threshold, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach determining, by the monitoring device and based on the accelerometer experiencing an acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold and for a portion of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings received during travel of the railcar over a predefined distance, one or more statistical summaries.
However, Sawley teaches determining, by the monitoring device and based on the accelerometer experiencing an acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold and for a portion of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings received during travel of the railcar over a predefined distance, one or more statistical summaries (Lateral axle acceleration. The same definition of hunting was applied as for lateral car body acceleration. Lateral axle displacement. Hunting was defined to occur when axle displacement over at least 50% of the simulated track length allowed flange-to-flange oscillation, such as that shown by the dotted line in Fig. 4 – See at least page 1104, First Paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of determining, by the monitoring device and based on the accelerometer experiencing an acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold and for a portion of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings received during travel of the railcar over a predefined distance, one or more statistical summaries, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach receiving, by a controller of the monitoring device from the accelerometer and based on the accelerometer experiencing lateral acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold, an interrupt signal; based on receiving the interrupt signal, exiting, by the controller, a low-power mode; and after the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition, entering, by the controller, the low-power mode.
However, Sawley teaches receiving, by a controller of the monitoring device from the accelerometer and based on the accelerometer experiencing lateral acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold, an interrupt signal; based on receiving the interrupt signal, exiting, by the controller, a low-power mode; and after the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition, entering, by the controller, the low-power mode (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of receiving, by a controller of the monitoring device from the accelerometer and based on the accelerometer experiencing lateral acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold, an interrupt signal; based on receiving the interrupt signal, exiting, by the controller, a low-power mode; and after the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition, entering, by the controller, the low-power mode, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the acceleration data indicates lateral acceleration of a body of the railcar at a location above a truck of the railcar.
However, Sawley discloses wherein the acceleration data indicates lateral acceleration of a body of the railcar at a location above a truck of the railcar (Lateral and vertical acceleration on the deck above each bogie bolster – See at least page 1105, “Track tests” First bullet point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of wherein the acceleration data indicates lateral acceleration of a body of the railcar at a location above a truck of the railcar, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Birch discloses a device for detecting a hunting condition of a railcar axle, the device comprising: a controller comprising one or more processors; a data array; an accelerometer; and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors while the device is attached to a railcar, cause the controller to:
obtain, from the accelerometer, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar (obtaining, in near real time, measurements from the sensor array while the railcar is operating – See at least abstract. The sensors may be configured to provide constant measurements or measurements at set intervals of time to the sensor data processing unit. Examples of sensors that could be utilized on the railcar include, but are not limited to, an accelerometer. In a further example, a position of the sensor within the railcar or within the train within may be captured or tracked by the sensor or within a data system– See at least ¶18);
store, in the data array, the acceleration data; determine, based on the acceleration data stored in the data array, a plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings (The baseline data set may also be created by having the sensor data processing unit analyze a gathered set of measurement data. If the gathered set of data is all within a predetermined range of standard deviation, then the set may be considered anomaly free and used as the baseline data – See at least ¶27).
Birch fails to explicitly disclose based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to a remote device located remotely relative to the device, an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition; wherein the instructions, when executed while the device is attached to the railcar, further cause the controller to: obtain, from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; and calculate a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar; and based on the data array having no empty indices, replace the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading.
However, Sawley teaches:
based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to a remote device located remotely relative to the device, an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph);
wherein the instructions, when executed while the device is attached to the railcar, further cause the controller to: obtain, from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; and calculate a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar; and based on the data array having no empty indices, replace the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g. Lateral axle acceleration. The same definition of hunting was applied as for lateral car body acceleration. Lateral axle displacement. Hunting was defined to occur when axle displacement over at least 50% of the simulated track length allowed flange-to-flange oscillation – See at least page 1104, First Paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to a remote device located remotely relative to the device, an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition; wherein the instructions, when executed while the device is attached to the railcar, further cause the controller to: obtain, from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; and calculate a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar; and based on the data array having no empty indices, replace the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Birch as modified teaches the device of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach filtering, by the monitoring device and using a low-pass filter, the acceleration data received from the accelerometer.
However, Sawley teaches filtering, by the monitoring device and using a low-pass filter, the acceleration data received from the accelerometer (Test speed was increased on each subsequent run until car body accelerations exceeded Chapter XI limits. Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15 Hz – See at least page 1105, “Track Tests Section”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of filtering, by the monitoring device and using a low-pass filter, the acceleration data received from the accelerometer, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Birch as modified teaches the device of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach providing, by the monitoring device and to the remote device, summary data associated with movement of the railcar, wherein the summary data comprises one or more of: an indication of a speed of the railcar; an indication of a latitude and a longitude of the railcar; an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; an indication of a maximum standard deviation of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; or an indication of a percentage of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying the standard deviation threshold.
However, Sawley teaches providing, by the monitoring device and to the remote device, summary data associated with movement of the railcar, wherein the summary data comprises one or more of: an indication of a speed of the railcar (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least 1104, “First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of providing, by the monitoring device and to the remote device, summary data associated with movement of the railcar, wherein the summary data comprises one or more of: an indication of a speed of the railcar, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the obtaining the acceleration data is based on a speed of the railcar satisfying a speed threshold.
However, Sawley teaches wherein the obtaining the acceleration data is based on a speed of the railcar satisfying a speed threshold (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least 1104, “First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of wherein the obtaining the acceleration data is based on a speed of the railcar satisfying a speed threshold, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach determining, by the monitoring device and based on the accelerometer experiencing an acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold and for a portion of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings received during travel of the railcar over a predefined distance, one or more statistical summaries.
However, Sawley teaches determining, by the monitoring device and based on the accelerometer experiencing an acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold and for a portion of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings received during travel of the railcar over a predefined distance, one or more statistical summaries (Lateral axle acceleration. The same definition of hunting was applied as for lateral car body acceleration. Lateral axle displacement. Hunting was defined to occur when axle displacement over at least 50% of the simulated track length allowed flange-to-flange oscillation, such as that shown by the dotted line in Fig. 4 – See at least page 1104, First Paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of determining, by the monitoring device and based on the accelerometer experiencing an acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold and for a portion of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings received during travel of the railcar over a predefined distance, one or more statistical summaries, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach receiving, by a controller of the monitoring device from the accelerometer and based on the accelerometer experiencing lateral acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold, an interrupt signal; based on receiving the interrupt signal, exiting, by the controller, a low-power mode; and after the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition, entering, by the controller, the low-power mode.
However, Sawley teaches receiving, by a controller of the monitoring device from the accelerometer and based on the accelerometer experiencing lateral acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold, an interrupt signal; based on receiving the interrupt signal, exiting, by the controller, a low-power mode; and after the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition, entering, by the controller, the low-power mode (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of receiving, by a controller of the monitoring device from the accelerometer and based on the accelerometer experiencing lateral acceleration that satisfies an acceleration threshold, an interrupt signal; based on receiving the interrupt signal, exiting, by the controller, a low-power mode; and after the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition, entering, by the controller, the low-power mode, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Birch as modified teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the acceleration data indicates lateral acceleration of a body of the railcar at a location above a truck of the railcar.
However, Sawley discloses wherein the acceleration data indicates lateral acceleration of a body of the railcar at a location above a truck of the railcar (Lateral and vertical acceleration on the deck above each bogie bolster – See at least page 1105, “Track tests” First bullet point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of wherein the acceleration data indicates lateral acceleration of a body of the railcar at a location above a truck of the railcar, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Birch discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions for detecting a hunting condition of a railcar axle, wherein the instructions, when executed by a monitoring device attached to a railcar, configure the monitoring device to:
obtain, from an accelerometer of the monitoring device, acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar (obtaining, in near real time, measurements from the sensor array while the railcar is operating – See at least abstract. The sensors may be configured to provide constant measurements or measurements at set intervals of time to the sensor data processing unit. Examples of sensors that could be utilized on the railcar include, but are not limited to, an accelerometer. In a further example, a position of the sensor within the railcar or within the train within may be captured or tracked by the sensor or within a data system– See at least ¶18);
determine, based on the acceleration data, a plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings (The baseline data set may also be created by having the sensor data processing unit analyze a gathered set of measurement data. If the gathered set of data is all within a predetermined range of standard deviation, then the set may be considered anomaly free and used as the baseline data – See at least ¶27).
Birch fails to explicitly disclose provide, to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device and only if at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfies a standard deviation threshold: an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition and wherein the instructions, when executed while the device is attached to the railcar, further cause the controller to: obtain, from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; calculate a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replace the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading.
However, Sawley teaches:
provide, to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device and only if at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfies a standard deviation threshold: an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph);
wherein the instructions, when executed while the device is attached to the railcar, further cause the controller to: obtain, from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; calculate a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replace the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading (Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g. Lateral axle acceleration. The same definition of hunting was applied as for lateral car body acceleration. Lateral axle displacement. Hunting was defined to occur when axle displacement over at least 50% of the simulated track length allowed flange-to-flange oscillation – See at least page 1104, First Paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of provide, to a remote device located remotely relative to the monitoring device and only if at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfies a standard deviation threshold: an indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition and wherein the instructions, when executed while the device is attached to the railcar, further cause the controller to: obtain, from the accelerometer, a new accelerometer reading indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar; calculate a running standard deviation based on the new accelerometer reading, wherein the running standard deviation is calculated over a time window corresponding to a predefined distance traveled by the railcar and based on the data array having no empty indices, replace the oldest accelerometer reading stored in the data array with the new accelerometer reading, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Birch as modified teaches the medium of claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach based on a speed of the railcar being unavailable and based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer; based on the speed of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; and based on the speed of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying the standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a percentage of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings that satisfied the standard deviation threshold.
However, Sawley teaches based on a speed of the railcar being unavailable and based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer; based on the speed of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; and based on the speed of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying the standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a percentage of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings that satisfied the standard deviation threshold (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph. Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least 1104, “First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of based on a speed of the railcar being unavailable and based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer; based on the speed of the railcar being unavailable, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Birch as modified teaches the medium of claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach based on a location of the railcar being unavailable and based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar and an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer; based on a location of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; and based on a location of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying the standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a percentage of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings that satisfied the standard deviation threshold.
However, Sawley teaches based on a location of the railcar being unavailable and based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar and an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer; based on a location of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings; and based on a location of the railcar being unavailable, based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying the acceleration threshold for the defined duration, and based on at least one of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying the standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a percentage of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings that satisfied the standard deviation threshold (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph. Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least 1104, “First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of based on a speed of the railcar being unavailable and based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer; based on the speed of the railcar being unavailable, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 24, Birch as modified teaches the medium of claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach based on a speed of the railcar not satisfying a speed threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of the speed of the railcar and an indication of a location of the railcar.
However, Sawley teaches based on a speed of the railcar not satisfying a speed threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of the speed of the railcar and an indication of a location of the railcar (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of based on a speed of the railcar not satisfying a speed threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of the speed of the railcar and an indication of a location of the railcar, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Birch as modified teaches the medium of claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of a location of the railcar, and an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer.
However, Sawley teaches based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of a location of the railcar, and an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar not satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of a location of the railcar, and an indication of a maximum lateral acceleration detected, during the defined duration, by the accelerometer., as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Birch as modified teaches the medium of claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated.
Birch as modified does not explicitly teach based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration and based on none of the none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of a location of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings.
However, Sawley teaches based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration and based on none of the none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of a location of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings (Data was digitized at 200 samples per second and low-pass filtered at 15Hz . Lateral car body acceleration. Hunting was defined to occur when the standard deviation of lateral acceleration over 600m exceeded 0.13 g – See at least page 1104-1105, First paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Birch and include the feature of based on a lateral acceleration of the railcar satisfying an acceleration threshold for a defined duration and based on none of the none of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings satisfying a standard deviation threshold, provide, to the remote device, an indication of a speed of the railcar, an indication of a location of the railcar, an indication of an average of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, and an indication of a maximum of the plurality of standard deviations of accelerometer readings, as taught by Sawley, to make vehicles more prone to vehicle instability (See at least abstract).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birch et al., US 20180222504 A1, in view of Sawley K et al., "The effect of hollow-worn wheels on vehicle stability in straight track", vol. 258, 1 March 2005, Pages 1100-1108, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767 A1, hereinafter referred to as Birch, Sawley and LeFebvre, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Birch and Sawley fails to explicitly disclose wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition.
However, LeFebvre teaches wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition (Each WSN also includes circuitry for wireless communications – See at least ¶43. For WSNs located on the body of railcar, examples of messages generated are vertical hunting and lateral hunting – See at least ¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Birch and Sawley and include the feature of wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, as taught by LeFebvre, to detect anomalous operating conditions (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Birch and Sawley fails to explicitly disclose after the providing the indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, resetting, by the monitoring device, a reference frame of the accelerometer.
However, LeFebvre teaches after the providing the indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, resetting, by the monitoring device, a reference frame of the accelerometer (For WSNs located on the body of railcar, examples of messages generated are vertical hunting and lateral hunting – See at least ¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Birch and Sawley and include the feature of wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, as taught by LeFebvre, to detect anomalous operating conditions (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Birch and Sawley fails to explicitly disclose wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition.
However, LeFebvre teaches wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition (Each WSN also includes circuitry for wireless communications – See at least ¶43. For WSNs located on the body of railcar, examples of messages generated are vertical hunting and lateral hunting – See at least ¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Birch and Sawley and include the feature of wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, as taught by LeFebvre, to detect anomalous operating conditions (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Birch and Sawley fails to explicitly disclose after the providing the indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, resetting, by the monitoring device, a reference frame of the accelerometer.
However, LeFebvre teaches after the providing the indication that an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, resetting, by the monitoring device, a reference frame of the accelerometer (For WSNs located on the body of railcar, examples of messages generated are vertical hunting and lateral hunting – See at least ¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Birch and Sawley and include the feature of wherein the providing the indication that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition comprises transmitting, by the monitoring device via a wireless network and to the remote device, a message comprising the indication that the axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, as taught by LeFebvre, to detect anomalous operating conditions (See at least ¶2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665