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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims each recite (emphasis added):
Claim 8 — “…send the signal to the train causing the train to stop automatically responsive to a determination that proper action has not been taken manually before the train is within a predefined distance of the switch.”
Claim 16 — similar limitation in method form.
The phrase “proper action” renders the scope of the claims indefinite because it is a subjective/relative term that lacks objective boundaries or criteria in the specification by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether the condition is met. The specification provides no standard for what qualifies as “proper action” (e.g., acknowledgement, speed reduction by a specified amount, switch realignment, manual brake application within a defined time/distance, etc.), and thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty. See MPEP 2173.02 (Office action must identify why the metes and bounds are unclear) and MPEP 2173.05(b) (relative/subjective terminology requires a standard in the specification).
Claim 9 recites “…LED lights mounted in a secure housing located adjacent to the rail….” The term “secure” is a subjective term of degree lacking definition or objective criteria (e.g., impact rating, ingress protection level, tamper-resistance class) in the specification. Without an articulated standard, one of ordinary skill cannot determine the scope with reasonable certainty (e.g., whether “secure” means weather-proof (IP65+), tamper-resistant to a specified force, vibration-rated, etc.). See MPEP 2173.05(b) (relative/subjective terms require objective boundaries) and MPEP 2173.02.
References Cited
Reference 1: US 5,806,809 (Danner) – Railroad switch point position sensing system and method (numerals: switch 1; points 2, 3; stock rails 6, 7; proximity detectors 101, 102; detector element 114, internal switch 116; lock rod 41, lock connecting rod 42; PLC, FIG. 10).
Reference 2: US 2005/0072252 A1 (Kumar et al.) – Wheel sensor assembly for rail base mounting (numerals: clamp 8; rail 11; blocks 18, 19).
Reference 3: US 5,253,830 (Nayer) – Method for monitoring the condition of rail switch points (distance/threshold gap detection, storing baseline values).
Reference 4: US 10,059,354 B2 (Wabtec) – Locomotive-to-wayside device communication system (numerals: on-board device 12; wayside device 20; radio path; solar power supply).
Reference 5: US 10,400,396 B2 (Wabtec) – Switch alignment detection and enforcement (numerals: wayside arrangement A; circuit controller CC; wayside interface unit WIU; data radio DR; power source PS; on-board device CD; train management computer TMC).
Reference 6: US 6,435,459 B1 (Sanderson et al.) – LED wayside signal (numerals: LED arrays 21, 23; board 17; housing; heat sink 19).
Reference 7: WO 2011/028577 A2 – Inductive proximity switch with calibration trigger (numerals: 100, 410, 420, 430, calibration device Figs. 10–11).
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.
The following sets forth the references relied upon and the claims they are applied against. Each claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the identified combination.
Claims 1–12 (System claims)
Base combination: Rejected over Reference 1 (Danner) in view of Reference 2 (Kumar) and Reference 3 (Nayer), and further in view of Reference 4 (Wabtec ’354).
Additional references for dependents:
Claims 7–8: further in view of Reference 5 (Wabtec ’396) (automatic enforcement).
Claim 9: further in view of Reference 6 (Sanderson) (LED housed indicator).
Claim 12: further in view of Reference 7 (WO ’577 calibration/teach) (calibration button).
Claims 13–18 (Method claims)
Base combination: Rejected over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 4.
Additional references for dependents:
Claims 15–16: further in view of Reference 5 (automatic enforcement, predefined distance).
Claim 18: further in view of Reference 7 (calibration button).
PART 1 — CLAIMS 1–4
Claim 1 (independent)
A switch gap detection system for use on a railway comprising:
one or more switch gap sensors installed on or adjacent to a rail at a location proximate to a switch, wherein the one or more switch gap sensors are configured to determine whether the switch is open, closed, or whether a switch gap is detected;
one or more train wheel sensors configured to detect when a rail wheel passes over a predefined point on the rail; and
a control unit comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive a signal from the one or more train wheel sensors indicating that a train has passed the predefined point on the rail;
responsive to receipt of the signal from the one or more train wheel sensors, obtain from the one or more switch gap sensors a current state of the switch, wherein the current state of the switch indicates whether the switch is open, closed, or whether a switch gap is detected; and
responsive to a determination that a switch gap is detected, cause a notification to be provided to an operator of the train.
Rejection: Claim 1 is rejected under §103 as unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and Ref. 3, and further in view of Ref. 4.
Analysis:
“one or more switch gap sensors … proximate to a switch … determine open/closed or gap” — Ref. 1 discloses proximity detectors (e.g., detectors 101, 102) positioned at the switch points 2, 3 adjacent to stock rails 6, 7, feeding a controller/PLC (e.g., FIG. 10), thereby indicating open/closed state. Ref. 3 teaches explicit gap detection by measuring the distance between the switch point and the stock rail, storing a baseline during proper seating, and comparing subsequent readings to a threshold to flag a gap (out-of-tolerance) condition.
“one or more train wheel sensors … detect when a rail wheel passes over a predefined point on the rail” — Ref. 2 discloses a rail-mounted wheel sensor assembly fixed to rail 11 using clamp 8 and blocks 18, 19, with a sensor head positioned to detect the wheel flange crossing that defined point.
“control unit … receive wheel-sensor signal; responsive thereto, obtain switch state; notification to operator” — Ref. 1 provides the controller/PLC context that receives sensor inputs (switch point detectors). Combined with Ref. 2, the controller is gated or triggered by the wheel-sensor signal to obtain the switch state when the train passes the predefined point. For notification, Ref. 4 provides a wayside device (20) that transmits a radio signal to an on-board device (12) for operator alerting in the cab.
Motivation:
A POSITA would combine Ref. 1 (switch state sensing) with Ref. 2 (wheel-sensor trigger) so the system checks the switch when a train is actually approaching/passing a known point, a standard interlock pattern that reduces nuisance checks and aligns decision-making to train presence (predictable benefit). Adding Ref. 3 (baseline/threshold gap detection) enhances Ref. 1 from simple state indication to quantitative gap detection—directly addressing worn/misaligned points and reducing false “safe” readings (predictable safety improvement). Using Ref. 4 for radio notification is an obvious way to notify the operator in the cab (predictable, widely used in modern signaling). The elements are complementary and provide a predictable, safer system.
Claim 2
… wherein to determine whether the switch is open, closed, or whether a switch gap is detected, the one or more switch gap sensors are configured to detect movement of a switch connecting arm of the switch in a direction perpendicular to the rail.
Rejection: Claim 2 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds as claim 1).
Analysis:
Ref. 1 discloses connecting/lock members such as a lock rod and lock connecting rod (e.g., 41, 42) that move laterally (perpendicular) to the rail when the points are thrown. Ref. 1 positions sensors to detect the positions/movement of these members, validating correct switch motion/locking. This is detecting movement of a switch connecting arm in a direction perpendicular to the rail to determine state.
The “gap detected” portion is covered via Ref. 3 as in claim 1, and the wheel trigger/notification remain as in Refs. 2 and 4.
Motivation:
Redundantly sensing the connecting arm/lock rod position is a common railway safeguard that verifies mechanical motion/locking beyond blade contact. A POSITA would implement this to increase integrity; the improvement and integration are predictable.
Claim 3
… wherein the one or more switch gap sensors comprise one or more electromagnetic sensors.
Rejection: Claim 3 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 1 employs electromagnetic/inductive proximity detectors at the points (e.g., detector element interacting with ferrous stock rail; internal switch output), which are electromagnetic sensors. This directly meets the limitation.
Motivation:
Inductive/electromagnetic proximity sensors are standard for harsh, dirty, oily trackside environments. A POSITA would choose them for reliability and immunity to foul conditions—predictable, routine engineering selection.
Claim 4
… wherein the one or more train wheel sensors are installed on or adjacent to the rail at a location at least 50 feet from the one or more switch gap sensors.
Rejection: Claim 4 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 2 shows the rail-mounted wheel sensor at a defined point on the rail. The exact spacing between that point and the switch sensor location (here, “at least 50 feet”) is a matter of placement for timing and reaction distance. Railway practice routinely sets wheel detectors upstream of a protected feature.
No unexpected result is tied to “≥50 ft”; it simply ensures adequate time to process, notify, and, if needed, enforce braking.
Motivation:
A POSITA would select the distance as a result-effective variable based on speed, track grade, and response times. Choosing ≥50 ft is a routine optimization yielding predictable, safe operation.
PART 2 — CLAIMS 5–8
Claim 5
… wherein the notification comprises an audible alert and/or a visual alert.
Rejection: Claim 5 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 1 uses controller outputs to indicators (visual).
Ref. 4 provides operator notification via an on-board device (12) receiving a radio from the wayside (20). On-board crew displays commonly include both visual and audible annunciation.
Thus, the combined system produces visual and/or audible alerts to the operator.
Motivation:
Providing both modalities is standard in safety-critical systems to ensure salience in noise or distraction; it’s an obvious, predictable enhancement.
Claim 6
… wherein the notification comprises a radio signal transmitted to the train.
Rejection: Claim 6 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 4 explicitly discloses a radio link from wayside 20 to on-board 12 for delivering notifications to the crew. Integrating that with Ref. 1/3 detection and Ref. 2 triggering yields the claimed radio-based notification.
Motivation:
A POSITA would integrate a radio path for direct in-cab notification, a conventional and predictable improvement over local-only indications.
Claim 7
… wherein the control unit is further configured to send a signal to the train causing the train to stop automatically.
Rejection: Claim 7 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 5.
Analysis:
Ref. 5 discloses automatic enforcement/stop using a train management computer (on-board) that acts based on wayside data (e.g., via WIU/DR to on-board CD/TMC) when a switch is unsafe/unknown.
Combining Ref. 5 with the Ref. 1/3 detection and Ref. 2 trigger provides the capability to send a signal that causes the train to stop automatically.
Motivation:
Automatic enforcement is the logical escalation after detection/notification when human reaction may be too slow. A POSITA would implement stop enforcement for predictable safety benefits; this is a well-known positive train control pattern.
Claim 8
… wherein the control unit is configured to send the signal … automatically responsive to a determination that proper action has not been taken manually before the train is within a predefined distance of the switch.
Rejection: Claim 8 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 5.
Analysis:
Ref. 5 enforces a stop prior to the switch if manual corrective action is not taken, which necessarily uses a predefined enforcement distance (braking curve / enforcement zone) to ensure stop occurs before the hazard.
Thus, adding Ref. 5 supplies the claimed distance-based automatic enforcement rule.
Motivation:
Defining an enforcement distance is routine in train control; a POSITA would set a threshold/zone so enforcement occurs in time. Predictable result: safe stopping before entering the unsafe switch.
PART 3 — CLAIMS 9–12
Claim 9
… further comprising one or more LED lights mounted in a secure housing located adjacent to the rail, wherein the one or more LED lights are configured to provide a visual indication of the current state of the switch.
Rejection: Claim 9 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 6.
Analysis:
Ref. 6 discloses LED arrays (e.g., 21, 23) on a board (17) within a sealed, rugged housing (with heat sink, e.g., 19), i.e., a wayside LED signal module.
Ref. 1 provides the switch state output. Using Ref. 6, the system provides a visual indication of switch state via LEDs in a secure housing adjacent to the rail.
Motivation:
Replacing or supplementing visual indicators with LED wayside modules is a well-known, predictable improvement (lower power, longer life, better visibility, ruggedized). A POSITA would make this substitution.
Claim 10
… further comprising a solar power module located adjacent to the rail and configured to provide operating power to at least the one or more switch gap sensors and the control unit.
Rejection: Claim 10 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 4 contemplates battery/solar powering of a wayside unit. Applying a solar module near the track to power Ref. 1’s sensors/controller is directly taught.
Motivation:
Solar powering for remote waysides is standard and predictable, enabling off-grid operation and reduced maintenance.
Claim 11
… the control unit is further configured to: measure a first distance … store as calibration data … measure a second distance … determine difference exceeds a threshold value … provide notification responsive…
Rejection: Claim 11 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 3 teaches measuring a distance between point/stock rail, storing a baseline, re-measuring, comparing to a threshold, and alarming if exceeded — exactly the claimed sequence.
Ref. 1 supplies the controller context (processing and I/O), Ref. 4 supplies the notification path.
Motivation:
A POSITA would employ baseline/threshold distance logic to explicitly detect gap formation; this is a known, predictable safety improvement over simple state sensors.
Claim 12
… further comprising a calibration button, wherein the first distance is measured and stored as calibration data responsive to user actuation of the calibration button.
Rejection: Claim 12 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 7.
Analysis:
Ref. 7 discloses an inductive proximity sensor with a user-actuated calibration/teach function (external trigger) that stores baseline values.
Integrating that trigger with Ref. 3’s baseline storage and Ref. 1’s controller yields the claimed calibration button behavior.
Motivation:
Providing a teach/calibrate actuator is routine for inductive sensors to capture baseline distances during install/service. It is a predictable, standard implementation.
PART 4 — CLAIMS 13–15 (method)
Claim 13 (independent)
A method of monitoring a switch on a railway, the method comprising:
receiving a signal from one or more train wheel sensors indicating that a train has passed a predefined point on a rail, wherein the one or more train wheel sensors are configured to detect when a rail wheel has passed over the predefined point on the rail;
obtaining from one or more switch gap sensors a current state of the switch responsive to receipt of the signal from the one or more train wheel sensors, wherein the one or more switch gap sensors are installed on or adjacent to a rail at a location proximate to the switch, and wherein the current state of the switch indicates whether the switch is open, closed, or whether a switch gap is detected; and
cause a notification to be provided to an operator of the train responsive to a determination that a switch gap is detected.
Rejection: Claim 13 is rejected under §103 as unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and Ref. 3, and further in view of Ref. 4.
Analysis:
Receive wheel-sensor signal at a predefined point: Ref. 2 (wheel sensor mounted to rail 11 using clamp 8 and blocks 18, 19) outputs a signal as a wheel crosses that defined point.
Obtain switch state/gap responsive to that signal: Ref. 1 provides point sensors (101, 102) and controller; Ref. 3 provides gap detection via distance/threshold comparison. The controller obtains the state when the wheel signal is received (gating).
Provide notification: Ref. 4 provides radio from wayside 20 to on-board 12 for operator alerting.
Motivation:
Gating the check by the wheel sensor is standard to align logic with train movement; explicit gap detection (baseline/threshold) improves safety; and radio notification is a conventional, predictable channel for crew alerts.
Claim 14
… further comprising detecting … movement of a switch connecting arm … perpendicular to the rail … to determine whether the switch is open, closed, or whether a switch gap is detected.
Rejection: Claim 14 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 1 discloses sensing motion/position of connecting/lock members (e.g., 41, 42) that move perpendicular to the rails, to validate proper switch movement/locking.
This step is naturally included in the method as another detection action to determine state.
Motivation:
Adding redundant rod-movement sensing is a conventional reliability practice; predictable benefit, well within ordinary skill.
Claim 15
… further comprising sending a signal to the train to cause the train to stop automatically.
Rejection: Claim 15 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 5.
Analysis:
Ref. 5 teaches automatic enforcement (on-board TMC initiating a stop) upon receiving unsafe/unknown switch data via the wayside radio path.
Integrating Ref. 5 with the earlier detection/trigger path performs the claimed method step.
Motivation:
Automatic stop is the foreseeable, standard escalation after detection when human action may be insufficient; predictable and conventional in modern train control.
PART 5 — CLAIMS 16–18 (method)
Claim 16
… sending the signal … causing the train to stop automatically responsive to a determination that proper action has not been taken manually before the train is within a predefined distance of the switch.
Rejection: Claim 16 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 5.
Analysis:
Ref. 5 performs distance-based enforcement (stop prior to the switch) when manual intervention is absent, necessarily using a predefined enforcement distance to ensure stopping before the hazard.
This supplies the claimed condition and distance-based trigger.
Motivation:
Defining a predefined distance/zone is routine in enforcement logic (braking curves). Implementing it here is predictable and standard.
Claim 17
… measuring a first distance … storing as calibration data … measuring a second distance … determining the difference exceeds a threshold value … notification responsive to the determination …
Rejection: Claim 17 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 (same base grounds).
Analysis:
Ref. 3 teaches this exact sequence: measure first distance at proper seating, store as baseline, measure later, compare to a threshold, notify/alarm if exceeded. Ref. 1 provides controller context; Ref. 4 provides a notification channel.
Motivation:
A POSITA would use this well-known baseline/threshold method to detect emerging gaps—predictable safety improvement.
Claim 18
… wherein the first distance is measured and stored as calibration data responsive to receipt of user actuation of a calibration button associated with the one or more switch gap sensors.
Rejection: Claim 18 is rejected under §103 over Refs. 1–4 and further in view of Ref. 7.
Analysis:
Ref. 7 discloses an inductive proximity sensor system with a user-triggered calibration/teach input that causes the sensor/controller to store baseline parameters.
Incorporating this into the distance/threshold process of Ref. 3 yields the claimed user-actuated baseline capture.
Motivation:
Teach buttons are standard for inductive sensors to set baselines; using one here is conventional and predictable to ensure accurate gap thresholds.
Conclusion
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