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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/11/22 and 11/04/24 are being considered by the examiner.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Reference 1 – EP 3 178 720 (“EP ’720” or “Ref. 1”)
Reference 2 – US 2019/0016350 (“US ’350” or “Ref. 2”)
Reference 3 – JP 2018-179534 (“JP ’534” or “Ref. 3”)
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 (EP ’720) in view of Ref. 3 (JP ’534) and Ref. 2 (US ’350).
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 (Recited):
“1. A processing system for carrying out track work, the processing system comprising:a rail vehicle including at least one processing device;a monitoring device for defining and monitoring a permissible working space for said rail vehicle in a horizontal x-direction correspondinq to a lonqitudinal rail direction and in a horizontal v-direction correspondinq to a transverse rail direction;at least one position measuring device for determining a position of said rail vehicle; anda control device for controlling said rail vehicle in dependence on the determined position and the defined working space..”
Analysis:
Rail vehicle + processing device: Ref. 2 discloses a rail maintenance vehicle with a multi-axis industrial robot and other processing tools (Ref. 2, [0010]–[0016]).
Working space definition/monitoring + position determination + control/stop: Ref. 1 teaches allocating a working area to a rail vehicle, determining the vehicle’s position (e.g., GPS receiver 40, [0041]) and controlling braking/speed to prevent leaving the area (Ref. 1, [0007]–[0013], [0017]–[0018], [0024]).
Two-direction (x and y) monitoring of a permissible working space: Ref. 3 teaches monitoring and maintaining operation within a defined bounded space aligned to the track—the “normal flight range F1”—using the width direction detection unit 14 (lateral y) and GNSS-based longitudinal control (x), with height direction detection 15 for z. The direction correction unit 11b and height control unit 11c enforce staying within bounds and initiate retreat/stop behavior on boundary violation/obstacle presence (Ref. 3, discussion of F1/F2, 11a/11b/11c, 14, 15, 16).
Motivation: Combining Ref. 1’s vehicle/working-area control with Ref. 3’s explicit lateral/longitudinal (x/y) bounded-space monitoring and obstacle detection to supervise and constrain operation within a defined, two-axis permissible space is a classic KSR rationale: the elements are predictably combinable to yield enhanced safety and automated constraint enforcement during track work. Ref. 2 supplies the processing device. MPEP §2143. The overall result—performing automated track work while monitoring an x/y-bounded working space and controlling the vehicle based on position relative to that space—is thus obvious over the combination.
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 (Recited):
“2. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said rail vehicle is configured for at least one of driverless operation or unattended operation.”
Analysis
Claim (driverless/unattended): Ref. 1’s external control of braking/speed/position (e.g., [0007], [0012], [0017], [0024]) is consistent with driverless/unattended operation; Ref. 2’s robotized maintenance fortifies the automation use case.
Motivation: Safety and labor-efficiency gains motivate automation under a monitored space. Obvious.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 (Recited):
“3. The processing system according to claim 1, which further comprises at least one sensor for controlling said at least one processing device.”
Analysis
Ref. 2 (US ’350) teaches using sensors to control a “processing device” such as an industrial robot or a tamping pick assembly (see ¶[0013], [0014], [0020]).
Ref. 1 does not contradict or teach away from using sensors on the processing device; rather, it focuses on location/working-area control.
Motivation: It would have been obvious to provide sensors on the track-processing device to enable automated or precise operation, given that sensors for controlling industrial robots are well-known in track maintenance contexts.
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 (Recited):
“4. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one processing device is configured as a multi-axis robot.”
Analysis
Ref. 2 discloses that the maintenance vehicle’s processing device can be an “industrial robot,” including a multi-axis mechanism (see ¶[0010]–[0011], which mention an industrial robot with multiple axes for rail grinding, drilling, or other tasks).
Ref. 1’s system controls the vehicle; it places no limitation on whether the “processing device” is multi-axis.
Motivation: Incorporating a known multi-axis industrial robot (Ref. 2) into the monitored/controlled rail vehicle system (Ref. 1) would provide flexible and automated track maintenance.
Hence, Claim 4 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 5
Claim 5 (Recited):
“5. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one position measuring device has a non-contact configuration.”
Analysis
Ref. 1 teaches measuring the rail vehicle position via GPS or other non-contact-based means (¶[0013], [0023], discussing “GPS receiver,” “tag reader,” or “balises” to determine absolute position).
Thus, the position-measuring device of Ref. 1 is indeed “non-contact” in nature.
Accordingly, Claim 5 is obvious over Ref. 1 alone, or in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6 (Recited):
“6. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one position measuring device has a mechanical configuration.”
Analysis
While Ref. 1 primarily exemplifies non-contact (GPS), it also contemplates alternative forms of position sensing (¶[0013], referencing “manual input of track or marker board,” “tag reader,” etc.). Although not explicitly describing a “mechanical cable,” it suggests the system can sense position by physically referencing the track.
Ref. 2 mentions alternative measuring systems for tamping alignment or track geometry checks that can include mechanical references (¶[0020]–[0022]).
Motivation: It would have been obvious to adapt mechanical measuring devices (e.g., cable-based or rail-contact-based position sensors) since mechanical sensors for rail vehicle location are known in the rail maintenance field and can be integrated with the control device of Ref. 1.
Hence, Claim 6 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 (Recited):
“7. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one position measuring device includes a first position measuring device for providing a first position measuring signal and a second position measuring device for providing a second position measuring signal.”
Analysis
Ref. 1 in ¶[0012]–[0013], [0024] contemplates using multiple signals (e.g., a “GPS receiver,” an “additional position determination device,” possibly “tag reader” or “manual input”) to cross-check the rail vehicle’s location for safety.
Hence, having a “first position measuring device” and a “second position measuring device” is an obvious redundancy or fail-safe approach.
Motivation: One of ordinary skill would provide redundant position sensors (e.g., GPS plus track-based sensor) to ensure reliability and address potential sensor failure.
Claim 7 is thus obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 (Recited):
“8. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said monitoring device includes at least two monitoring units each configured to be disposed on a respective side of said rail vehicle.”
Analysis
Claim (at least two monitoring units on respective sides): Ref. 3’s lateral (“width”) monitoring and bounded lateral flight range F1 naturally lead to opposing-side sensing/coverage to bound both sides of the permissible corridor. In the combined system, implementing two flanking units (or two flanking fields of view/coverage) to define/monitor the space laterally is an obvious configuration to enforce lateral bounds consistently.
Motivation: Symmetry and complete lateral coverage across the track are plainly beneficial. Obvious.
Dependent Claim 9
Claim 9 (Recited):
“9. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said monitoring device includes at least one optical monitoring unit.”
Analysis
Claim (optical monitoring unit disposed above the rail vehicle in z): Ref. 3’s monitoring payload is on a flying object above the track, imaging/laser-scanning from above; that is a direct teaching of an optical unit disposed above.
Motivation: Elevated vantage provides unobstructed detection of the rail corridor and workspace. Obvious.
Claim 10 (Recited):
“10. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said monitoring device includes at least one flying object.”
Analysis
Claims 1 + 10 require a “flying object” (e.g., a drone) to act as at least part of the “monitoring device.”
As established in the rejections above, Ref. 1 + Ref. 2 together teach the essential elements of Claim 1, except they do not explicitly mention using a “flying object” for monitoring.
Reference 3 (JP ’534) discloses using an “unmanned air vehicle (drone)” to patrol or monitor a track (see e.g. entire disclosure: “The flight system for an unmanned air vehicle … to image the track, detect position, etc.”). Ref. 3 shows that drones/flying objects are known to monitor track conditions.
Motivation: It would have been obvious to utilize a flying drone as part of the monitoring device (instead of or in addition to stationary sensors) to gain a flexible, wide-ranging view of the track and the vehicle’s permissible working space. Incorporating the drone-based monitoring from Ref. 3 into the combined system of Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 would be a predictable variation, improving real-time monitoring coverage and vantage, as recognized in Ref. 3’s teachings of aerial inspection for track maintenance.
Hence, Claim 10 is rendered obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3.
Dependent Claim 11
Claim 11 (Recited):
“11. The processing system according to claim 1, which further comprises a safety device for mechanically stopping said rail vehicle outside of said working space.”
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses that if the rail vehicle tries to leave the working area, an emergency braking can be triggered or the vehicle can be forcibly stopped (¶[0017]–[0018]). While Ref. 1 emphasizes braking, mechanical derailers or stoppers are commonly known in rail maintenance as an additional final safety measure.
It would have been obvious to include a physical or mechanical stopping device to prevent the vehicle from leaving the zone in the event of control or brake failure.
Motivation: Providing mechanical stops or derail devices is standard practice in track maintenance to ensure safety if automatic systems fail or the vehicle surpasses the permissible boundary.
Claim 11 is thus obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 12
Claim 12 (Recited):
“12. The processing system according to claim 1, which further comprises a tool magazine for providing tools for said at least one processing device.”
Analysis
Ref. 2 explicitly teaches that its industrial robot may exchange different rail maintenance tools (e.g., a grinder, driller, or wrench) from a tool storage area (¶[0015]–[0016]).
Ref. 1 is silent regarding whether the vehicle has a magazine for tools, but does not teach away from it.
Motivation: One of skill would find it obvious to provide a “tool magazine” so that the processing device can automatically switch tools for different tasks, improving efficiency of track work operations.
Thus, Claim 12 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 13
Claim 13 (Recited):
“13. The processing system according to claim 1, which further comprises an energy supply device for supplying energy.”
Analysis
Ref. 2 discloses energy sources on maintenance vehicles for powering robotic arms, grinders, tampers, or hydraulic systems (see e.g. ¶[0016]–[0017]).
Ref. 1’s general discussion of rail vehicles inherently includes providing power or energy supply (e.g., to the braking system or the external device).
Motivation: It would have been obvious to include an on-vehicle “energy supply device,” such as battery or external feed, to operate the processing device and relevant control units.
Hence, Claim 13 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14 (Recited):
“14. The processing system according to claim 1, wherein said control device includes at least one of at least one emitter for emitting signals or at least one receiver for receiving signals.”
Analysis
Ref. 1 repeatedly discusses signal transmission and reception between the external control device and the rail vehicle to control speed, braking, etc. (¶[0010]–[0011], [0027]).
Hence, an “emitter” and/or “receiver” for signals is inherently present in the taught system.
Consequently, Claim 14 is obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Independent Claim 15
Claim 15 (Recited):
“15. A method for carrying out track work, the method comprising the following steps: providing a processing system for carrying out track work, … including a rail vehicle … a monitoring device for defining and monitoring a permissible working space … at least one position measuring device … and a control device … ; using the monitoring device to define the working space; and moving the rail vehicle and carrying out track work within the defined working space by: using the at least one position measuring device to determine the position of the rail vehicle, and using the control device to control the rail vehicle in dependence on the determined position and the defined working space.”
Analysis
(1) Monitoring device defines and monitors a permissible working space in x (longitudinal) and y (transverse); and (2) Stopping at least one of the rail vehicle or processing device when a boundary is violated due to erroneous movement or a person/object entering the working space.
Analysis:
x/y working space monitoring is taught by the combination as set forth for claim 1 (Ref. 1 + Ref. 3; bounded range enforced by lateral/longitudinal sensing).
Stopping on boundary violation: Ref. 1 discloses emergency braking when boundary conditions are approached ([0017]–[0018]).
Stopping on person/object entry: Ref. 3’s obstacle detection unit 16 detects objects/persons in the corridor and triggers operational changes (retreat, halt). Integrating that detection into Ref. 1’s stop/brake control is an obvious safety interlock.
Carrying out track work within the defined space is satisfied by incorporating Ref. 2’s processing device on the rail vehicle and operating it while the monitoring/control subsystems keep the vehicle within bounds.
Motivation: Safety-critical automation benefits from interlocks: if the monitored space is violated by the vehicle or a foreign object/person, stopping the vehicle and/or the processing device is a straightforward, predictable safeguard. Combining Ref. 3’s obstacle detection with Ref. 1’s stop control meets this exactly. Obvious.
Claim 16 (new; depends from amended 9)
Claim (image processing unit evaluating image data to monitor the working space): Ref. 3’s control stack processes image/laser data from the width and height detection units to determine position and enforce remaining within F1 (e.g., direction correction unit 11b, height control unit 11c operating on the data).
Motivation: Image/point-cloud processing is inherent to optical monitoring. Obvious.
Claim 17 (new; depends from 10)
Claim (optical monitoring unit disposed on the flying object): Ref. 3 discloses exactly that—the UAV carries the imaging/laser units. Obvious.
Claim 18 (new; depends from 17)
Claim (position measuring device for the flying object): Ref. 3 explicitly uses GNSS signal receiving unit 13 and other sensors to determine the UAV position.
Motivation: Required for closed-loop flight/monitoring. Obvious.
Claim 19 (new)
Claim (define a detection space; working space defined within and size changeable based on environmental influences):
Ref. 1 teaches dynamically triggering emergency braking based on security distance computed from speed, braking performance, vehicle weight, and track condition ([0018]). These are environmental/operational parameters that alter how close you can be to the boundary—effectively changing the “safe” working-space envelope.
Ref. 3 teaches transitioning between F1 and F2 in response to obstacles/crossings—again changing the allowed operational space based on external conditions.
Motivation: It is obvious to adapt the workspace envelope to prevailing conditions (speed, track condition, obstacles), to maintain safety with predictable engineering benefits. Obvious.
Claim 20 (new; depends from 10)
Claim (at least one further flying object with an optical monitoring unit monitors track at a distance from the working space/vehicle): Ref. 3 already teaches using a UAV to monitor/scan the rail corridor. Replicating the UAV to monitor a different segment of track upstream/downstream of the active working space is a simple duplication to extend coverage and increase safety margin—a predictable design choice (MPEP §2144.04). The motivation is clear: earlier detection of approaching hazards or encroaching rail traffic beyond the immediate workspace.
Motivation: Design choice to scale coverage by adding additional, identical units for monitoring more track in advance; predictable, yields improved warning time. Obvious.
Response to Arguments
APPLICATION STATUS / AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED
The amendment filed September 15, 2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are amended. Claims 16–20 are new.
Applicant’s arguments have been reviewed. For the reasons below, the amendments and arguments are not persuasive. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are set forth to address the newly-added limitations.
OVERVIEW OF THE KEY AMENDMENTS
Claim 1 now positively recites that the monitoring device defines and monitors a permissible working space in both the rail-longitudinal x-direction and the rail-transverse y-direction.
Claim 9 now requires the optical monitoring unit to be disposed above the rail vehicle in the vertical z-direction.
Claim 15 now mirrors claim 1’s x/y working-space definition and adds an explicit step of monitoring the defined working space and stopping the rail vehicle and/or processing device when a working-space boundary is violated by (i) incorrect vehicle movement or (ii) a person/object entering the working space.
New claims 16–20 add: image processing of the optical data (claim 16), optical monitoring on a flying object (claim 17), position measuring for the flying object (claim 18), dynamic sizing of the working space based on environmental influences (claim 19), and additional flying object(s) monitoring track at a distance (claim 20).
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
A. Applicant’s assertion that Ref. 1 does not disclose/teach two-direction (x and y) monitoring and cannot detect people/objects (Remarks, pp. 10–12)
Not persuasive. Ref. 1 expressly teaches that the working area can be “one-dimensional or, preferably, two-dimensional” within a railway network and is allocated to the vehicle by an external control device; the device determines the vehicle’s position and controls driving conditions to prevent egress from that area (see Ref. 1, [0007]–[0012], [0019]–[0021], [0024]). While Ref. 1 illustrates two-dimensionality principally with branching/switching along the network, the claimed “x” and “y” frame is simply a coordinate framing of the permissible space around the vehicle. Nothing in Ref. 1 limits the monitored area to “x only,” and Ref. 1’s control logic (e.g., emergency braking on boundary approach per [0017]–[0018]) is agnostic as to the coordinate basis in which the area is expressed.
Moreover, Applicant’s new “x/y” monitoring and “person/object” intrusion detection features are obvious in view of Ref. 1 combined with Ref. 3:
Ref. 3 (JP ’534) provides a monitoring modality that explicitly tracks lateral (transverse) position (“width direction detection unit 14”), longitudinal control (“direction control unit 11a” along the track), and altitude (“height direction detection unit 15”), and defines/monitors a bounded “normal flight range F1” (a cylindrical space tied to the track) within which the system maintains operation and exits/retreats on boundary or obstacle conditions. Ref. 3 also includes an obstacle detection unit 16 that detects objects and triggers changes in operation (e.g., retreat to F2). Those teachings are directly responsive to the amended x/y monitoring and the “object/person entering working space” scenarios.
Under KSR, combining Ref. 1’s vehicle/working-area allocation + stop/brake control with Ref. 3’s lateral/longitudinal/height sensing within a defined space + obstacle detection to achieve two-axis working-space monitoring and stop/retreat on intrusion or boundary violation would have been no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions to yield improved safety during automated track work. See also MPEP §2143.
B. Applicant’s assertion that Ref. 2 “does not disclose a monitoring device”
Not persuasive (and immaterial to the core combination). Ref. 2 is relied upon for the processing device aspects of the claimed system: a rail-mounted multi-axis industrial robot, tool storage, sensors for controlling the processing device, etc. (Ref. 2, e.g., [0010]–[0016], [0020]–[0021]). Ref. 2 is not the only source of the “monitoring device” element in the combination; that role is provided by Ref. 1 (working-area allocation/monitoring and stop/braking) and especially Ref. 3 (x/y/z sensing within a defined permissible range plus obstacle detection). The fact that Ref. 2’s side walls define a physical workspace does not detract from the obviousness of adopting the electronic/optical monitoring modality taught by Ref. 3, combined with the vehicle-control safeguards of Ref. 1.
C. Applicant’s assertion that Ref. 3 “does not define or monitor a working space”
Not persuasive. Ref. 3 explicitly defines a “normal flight range F1” (bounded space between the overhead line and the track, longitudinally following the route) and monitors whether the system remains within that space using the width direction detection unit 14 and the height direction detection unit 15, with control logic that corrects to remain in-bounds and retreats to an evacuation range F2 when needed. That is the very essence of defining and monitoring a permissible working space (with explicit lateral (y), longitudinal (x), and vertical (z) components). Ref. 3 also features an obstacle detection unit 16 to sense foreign objects/persons and alter operation. Those teachings map directly to the amended claim language.
D. Applicant’s reliance on allowance in a corresponding Japanese patent (JP 7 665 639 B2)
Not persuasive. Allowance in a foreign jurisdiction does not control U.S. patentability. See MPEP §706.01, §901.06. The U.S. determination under 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 is made on the U.S. record and cited art.
CONCLUSION / ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive.
New §103 grounds have been provided to address the added limitations of claims 1, 9, 15, and 16–20 using the same prior-art set (Refs. 1–3) already of record.
If Applicant believes there are claim constructions that would distinguish over the above combinations, clarifying amendments are invited. For example, if Applicant intends to limit the “monitoring device” to non-GNSS, non-UAV-based overhead systems performing dynamic, people-specific classification with pre-defined lateral margins independent of the rail centerline, that should be affirmatively claimed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613