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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 10/8/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 – accelerometric sensor means
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 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining longitudinal acceleration of a railway vehicle from acceleration and velocity measurements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the performance of the underlying railway vehicle is not improved in any manner.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the measuring of the acceleration and velocity values needs to be performed because such values are required to perform the algorithm. The recitation that the accelerometer records 3-axis data is merely a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner of producing accelerometer measurements [See the discussion of Pedley, below]. The recitation that the velocity values are GPS or wheel/axle speed sensors provided is merely a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner of producing velocity measurements [See the discussion of Surpi and Lee, below]. The recitation of the specific time points when measurements/calculations take place does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself because those limitations are merely descriptive of the mathematical algorithm itself.
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) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surpi (US 10072933 B1); Pedley, High-Precision Calibration of a Three-Axis Accelerometer, Freescale Semiconductor, 2015; and Lee et al. (US 4989923 A)[hereinafter “Lee”].
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Surpi discloses a method for estimating a longitudinal acceleration of at least one railway vehicle by means of an accelerometric sensor means arranged to measure a first acceleration a.sub.x along a first axis x and a second acceleration a.sub.y along a second axis y [Column 1 lines 6-14 – “Modern vehicles (e.g., airplanes, boats, trains, cars, trucks, etc.) can include a vehicle event recorder in order to better understand the timeline of an anomalous event (e.g., an accident). A vehicle event recorder typically includes a set of sensors, e.g., video recorders, audio recorders, accelerometers, gyroscopes, vehicle state sensors, GPS (global positioning system), etc., that report data, which is used to determine the occurrence of an anomalous event.”See the sections “Forward Decomposition” and “Lateral Decomposition” in Columns 7 and 8.], and
measuring, in which an independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref of the railway vehicle is available, an independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref being independent from said accelerometric sensor means [See the section “Forward Decomposition” in Column 7 – “The forward_coarse_acceleration can be estimated directly from the accelerometer sensor's measurements as the derivative of the vehicle speed … forward_coarse_acceleration=d(speed)/dt”];
calculating the value of a first independent longitudinal reference acceleration a.sub.ref(t.sub.c1) in the first calibration instant t.sub.c1 from a first value of the independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref(t.sub.c1) measured in the first calibration instant t.sub.c1; calculating the value of a second independent longitudinal reference acceleration a.sub.ref(t.sub.c2) in the second calibration instant t.sub.c2 from a second value of the independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref(t.sub.c2) measured in the second calibration instant t.sub.c2; and calculating the value of a third independent longitudinal reference acceleration a.sub.ref(t.sub.c3) in the third calibration instant t.sub.c3 from a third value of the independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref(t.sub.c3) measured in the third calibration instant t.sub.c3 [See the section “Forward Decomposition” in Column 7 – “The forward_coarse_acceleration can be estimated directly from the accelerometer sensor's measurements as the derivative of the vehicle speed … forward_coarse_acceleration=d(speed)/dt”This is performed repeatedly – “In some embodiments, the forward acceleration is provided at a frequency of 100 Hz by a sensor. In some embodiments, a vehicle speed is obtained from a vehicle event recorder at 10 Hz, and a moving average filter is applied to the vehicle speed data for smoothing using a 0.5 second rolling window. The forward macroscopic acceleration, which is the derivative of the vehicle speed data, is calculated at each point as the difference between the speed the 0.5 second after and the 0.5 second before divided by 1 second.”].
Surpi fails to disclose:
a third acceleration a.sub.z along a third axis z, wherein the first axis x, the second axis y and the third axis z are orthogonal to each other;
the method for estimating the longitudinal acceleration of at least one railway vehicle comprising the steps of:
executing a calibration phase including the steps of:
measuring, in a first calibration instant t.sub.c1, a first value of a first acceleration a.sub.x(t.sub.c1), a first value of a second acceleration a.sub.y(t.sub.c1) and a first value of a third acceleration a.sub.z(t.sub.c1);
measuring, in a second calibration instant t.sub.c2, which second calibration instant is different from said first calibration instant t.sub.c1, a second value of the first acceleration a.sub.x(t.sub.c2), a second value of the second acceleration a.sub.x(t.sub.c2) and a second value of the third acceleration a.sub.z(t.sub.c2);
measuring, in a third calibration instant t.sub.c3, which third calibration instant is different from said first calibration instant t.sub.c1 and from said second calibration instant t.sub.c2, a third value of the first acceleration a.sub.x(t.sub.c3), a third value of the second acceleration a.sub.y(t.sub.c3) and a third value of the third acceleration a.sub.z(t.sub.c3);
solving the following system, in order to determine the-values of a first direction cosine k.sub.1, a second direction cosine k.sub.2 and a third direction cosine k.sub.3:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
following the calibration phase, determining, for at least a first measurement instant t.sub.i1 in which said independent longitudinal reference speed of the railway vehicle is not available, an estimated longitudinal acceleration value a.sub.1on(t.sub.i1) of the at least one railway vehicle, wherein said estimated longitudinal acceleration value a.sub.1on(t.sub.i1) is relative to said first measurement instant t.sub.i1 and is estimated by means of the sum of:
a multiplication of the first direction cosine k.sub.1, determined during the calibration phase, with a fourth value of the first acceleration a.sub.x(t.sub.i1) acquired in said first measurement instant t.sub.i1;
a multiplication of the second direction cosine k.sub.2, determined during the calibration phase, with a fourth value of the second acceleration a.sub.y(t.sub.i1) acquired in said first measurement instant t.sub.i1;
a multiplication of the third direction cosine k.sub.3, determined during the calibration phase, with a fourth value of the third acceleration a.sub.z(t.sub.i1) acquired in said first measurement instant t.sub.i1;
wherein said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref of the railway vehicle is a longitudinal speed determined from an angular speed of an axle of the railway vehicle.
However, Pedley discloses a calibration method for a 3-axis accelerometer [See Title and Fig. 1] by determining appropriate accelerometer calibration weighting factors using the recited system of equations [See Sections 6 and 7. In Section 6, the β values per Equation 21. In Section 7, the W calibration parameters per Equations 40 and 45. See the description for the accelerometer measurements per Equations 52-53 and associated text.] to adjust cosine values [See Equation 18 and Page 3 – “An example of using relative accelerations is the calculation of orientation angles using ratios of the readings from the x, y and z accelerometer channels.”].
It would have been obvious to equip the vehicle (train) of Surpi with a 3-axis accelerometer as the accelerometer to be capable of detecting events causing 3-axis accelerations more effectively. It would have been obvious to calibrate such a sensor as taught by Pedley in order to ensure that the accelerometer values are as representative as possible regarding the state of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to use the derivative of speed values from the speed sensor of Surpi [Column 3 lines 40-46 – “In various embodiments, vehicle state sensors comprise … drive wheel speed sensors”] as a representation of the dependent variables of Pedley [See Equation 22] because doing so would have allowed for performing accelerometer calibration relative to another device capable of providing a representation of the actual acceleration experienced by the train [See the section “Forward Decomposition” in Column 7 of Surpi – “The forward_coarse_acceleration can be estimated directly from the accelerometer sensor's measurements as the derivative of the vehicle speed … forward_coarse_acceleration=d(speed)/dt”]. It would have been obvious to gather the required data over a series of time points during operation of the train of Surpi because doing so would have been an advantageous opportunity to gather the required accelerometer data during different orientations [See the measurement set corresponding to four orientations at Equation 52]. It would have been obvious to use the calibration parameters in the form of the recited sum of their multiplications with real-time data because Pedley teaches that this is how the calibration parameters can be used [See Equations 21 and 57]. It would have been obvious to do so in the event that the speed values from the speed sensor are not available for use in determining longitudinal acceleration because this would allow for the determination of longitudinal acceleration in that situation.
Although Surpi discloses the use of a wheel speed sensor [Column 3 lines 40-46 – “In various embodiments, vehicle state sensors comprise … drive wheel speed sensors”] and the use of the wheel speed sensor with regards to the determination of vehicle speed/acceleration would have been obvious per the explanation above, Surpi does not explicitly disclose said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref being available when said axle is not slipping and that said independent longitudinal reference speed Vref is unavailable when the axle is in a slippage condition such that the angular speed of the axle is not representative of the longitudinal speed of travel of the railway vehicle.
However, Lee discloses that wheel speed sensors are unable to produce reliable vehicle speed measurements when wheel slippage is present [Column 1 lines 27-43 – “When there is little or no wheel slip present at the wheels, most known vehicle reference calculations encounter little difficulty with accurately estimating the true vehicle body speed from the wheel speeds. For example, a simple average of the four wheel speeds will produce an accurate estimate of the vehicle speed under steady state driving conditions. Relatedly, using the highest of the wheel speed values as the reference speed value is also accurate under steady-state conditions. However, as wheel slip increases on one or more of the wheels, the accuracy of a vehicle reference speed created from either the simple average or based upon the highest wheel speed begins to degrade. This is because, as each wheel develops slip and begins to slow more rapidly than the true vehicle body speed, an average of these wheel speeds produces an estimated vehicle speed which is lower than the actual vehicle body speed.”]. The use of the wheel speed sensor of Surpi in the determination of vehicle speed/acceleration inherently would disclose that said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref being available when said axle is not slipping and that said independent longitudinal reference speed Vref is unavailable when the axle is in a slippage condition such that the angular speed of the axle is not representative of the longitudinal speed of travel of the railway vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Pedley, as modified, would disclose the recited error estimation and calibration parameter updating in the event that recalibration was performed [See Equation 27 – “the optimal least squares fit for the solution vector β is that which minimizes the performance function P defined as the modulus squared of the residuals vector”]. It would have been obvious to perform recalibration on a regular basis to ensure that the accelerometer is producing measurement that accurately reflect the status of the train.
Regarding Claim 3, Pedley, as modified, would disclose that said adaptive filter is arranged to determine said respective updated values of the first direction cosine k.sub.1, the second direction cosine k.sub.2 and the third direction cosine k.sub.3 through an adaptive algorithm based on a least means square technique, LMS [Section 6 – “Linear Least Squares Optimization”].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination would disclose that the calibration phase is repeated for a plurality of calibration instants [Gathering the measurement data set during operation of the train.].
Regarding Claim 7, although not considered by the combination, Surpi teaches the use of GPS for measuring the velocity of the train [Column 3 lines 11-14 – “Coarse behavior data comprises data describing the coarse traveling behavior of the vehicle—for instance global positioning system (e.g., GPS) position data or vehicle speed data.”]. It would have been obvious to gather and use GPS velocity data as additional velocity data because Surpi discloses this is an effective manner of generating that data and redundancy in measuring vehicle speed would have allowed for verification that measured vehicle speed is accurate. Doing so would disclose that said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref of the railway vehicle is the longitudinal speed of the railway vehicle further determined by a positioning means in addition to being from the angular speed of the axle of the railway vehicle; said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref being available further when said positioning means communicates with a satellite in addition to when said axle is not slipping.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination would disclose that the estimated longitudinal acceleration value a.sub.lon is determined for a plurality of measurement instants [Gathering the measurement data set during operation of the train.] in which said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref of the railway vehicle is available; the plurality of measurement instants being selected according to an acquisition period ΔTi [See the section “Forward Decomposition” in Column 7 of Surpi – “In some embodiments, the forward acceleration is provided at a frequency of 100 Hz by a sensor. In some embodiments, a vehicle speed is obtained from a vehicle event recorder at 10 Hz, and a moving average filter is applied to the vehicle speed data for smoothing using a 0.5 second rolling window. The forward macroscopic acceleration, which is the derivative of the vehicle speed data, is calculated at each point as the difference between the speed the 0.5 second after and the 0.5 second before divided by 1 second.”].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination would disclose that the estimated longitudinal acceleration a.sub.lon is continuously determined from an availability instant t.sub.av coinciding with an instant that directly precedes an unavailability instant in which said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref of the railway vehicle is no longer available, and said first measurement instant t.sub.i1 [See the section “Forward Decomposition” in Column 7 – “The forward_coarse_acceleration can be estimated directly from the accelerometer sensor's measurements as the derivative of the vehicle speed … forward_coarse_acceleration=d(speed)/dt”This is performed repeatedly – “In some embodiments, the forward acceleration is provided at a frequency of 100 Hz by a sensor. In some embodiments, a vehicle speed is obtained from a vehicle event recorder at 10 Hz, and a moving average filter is applied to the vehicle speed data for smoothing using a 0.5 second rolling window. The forward macroscopic acceleration, which is the derivative of the vehicle speed data, is calculated at each point as the difference between the speed the 0.5 second after and the 0.5 second before divided by 1 second.”].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surpi (US 10072933 B1); Pedley, High-Precision Calibration of a Three-Axis Accelerometer, Freescale Semiconductor, 2015; Lee et al. (US 4989923 A)[hereinafter “Lee”]; and Koenig (US 20110077891 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination would fail to disclose that the calibration phase is performed at each first ignition of the at least one railway vehicle.
However, Koenig discloses performing accelerometer calibration each time prior to performing navigation operations [See Paragraphs [0002] and [0004]. Paragraph [0004] – “Calibration of the IMUs is required each time before starting the process of inertial navigation. Note that the prior calibration may in fact still be accurate, but that would not be known without essentially calibrating. Therefore, a calibration routine is run each time before navigation.”]. It would have been obvious to perform calibration at such a time to ensure continual proper operation of the accelerometer.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surpi (US 10072933 B1); Pedley, High-Precision Calibration of a Three-Axis Accelerometer, Freescale Semiconductor, 2015; Lee et al. (US 4989923 A)[hereinafter “Lee”]; and Munnix (US 20110246020 A1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, the combination would fail to disclose measuring the value of the independent longitudinal reference speed V.sub.ref(t.sub.av) of said at least one railway vehicle in an availability instant t.sub.av coinciding with an instant that directly precedes an unavailability instant in which said independent longitudinal reference speed v.sub.ref of the railway vehicle is no longer available; determining the longitudinal speed v.sub.RV of the railway vehicle according to the following steps: calculating the sum of the longitudinal accelerations estimated in the plurality of measurement instants; multiplying the sum of the longitudinal accelerations determined in the plurality of measurement instants by the acquisition period ΔT.sub.i; adding the value of the independent longitudinal reference speed V.sub.ref(t.sub.av) of said at least one railway vehicle in the availability instant t.sub.av to the result of the multiplication of the sum of the estimated longitudinal accelerations determined in the plurality of measurement instants by the acquisition period ΔT.sub.i; and the subject matter of Claim 11.
However, Munnix discloses integrating acceleration measurements to provide velocity measurements during a time period when ordinary velocity measurements become unavailable [See Paragraphs [0065], [0067], and [0071]]. It would have been obvious to calculate velocity measurements in such a manner in order to compensate for the effect of the ordinary velocity measurements becoming unavailable. It would have been obvious to add that velocity to the last velocity measured by the ordinary velocity measurements because the acceleration values represent the observed change in velocity. It would have been obvious to determine the integrated velocity as the sum of the acceleration values multiplied by the acquisition period size [See the section “Forward Decomposition” in Column 7 of Surpi – “In some embodiments, the forward acceleration is provided at a frequency of 100 Hz by a sensor. In some embodiments, a vehicle speed is obtained from a vehicle event recorder at 10 Hz, and a moving average filter is applied to the vehicle speed data for smoothing using a 0.5 second rolling window. The forward macroscopic acceleration, which is the derivative of the vehicle speed data, is calculated at each point as the difference between the speed the 0.5 second after and the 0.5 second before divided by 1 second.”] because doing so is mathematically equivalent to performing integration on the acceleration values.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the combination would fail to disclose measuring the value of the independent longitudinal reference speed of said at least one railway vehicle in the availability instant t.sub.av; determining the longitudinal speed of the railway vehicle according to the following steps: calculating the integral of the estimated longitudinal acceleration a.sub.lon determined continuously from the availability instant t.sub.av to said first measurement instant t.sub.i1; adding the value of the independent longitudinal reference speed of said at least one railway vehicle in the availability instant t.sub.av to the result of the integral of the estimated longitudinal acceleration; and the subject matter of Claim 13.
However, Munnix discloses integrating acceleration measurements to provide velocity measurements during a time period when ordinary velocity measurements become unavailable [See Paragraphs [0065], [0067], and [0071]]. It would have been obvious to calculate velocity measurements in such a manner in order to compensate for the effect of the ordinary velocity measurements becoming unavailable. It would have been obvious to add that velocity to the last velocity measured by the ordinary velocity measurements because the acceleration values represent the observed change in velocity.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination would fail to disclose that the first measurement instant t.sub.i1 coincides with a return to availability instant t.sub.ret_av in which said independent longitudinal references speed V.sub.ref becomes available again after being unavailable. However, it would have been obvious to use the accelerometer derived velocities in place of the ordinary velocity measurements up to and including the moment the ordinary velocity measurements become available again in order to ensure that a velocity measurement is always available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
36
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
720
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
204
859
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees that Supri does not disclose the recited subject matter regarding the impact of wheel slip on determination of vehicle speed. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that determining vehicle speed based on wheel speed would not have been obvious. See the new grounds for rejection above, Supri discloses the use of a wheel speed sensor and Lee discloses the use of wheel speed sensors in determining vehicle speed.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
615
863
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
237
865
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
478
861
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Pedley discloses the same math as recited in the calibration of accelerometer cosines. It would have been obvious to equip the vehicle (train) of Surpi with a 3-axis accelerometer as the accelerometer to be capable of detecting events causing 3-axis accelerations more effectively. It would have been obvious to calibrate such a sensor as taught by Pedley in order to ensure that the accelerometer values are as representative as possible regarding the state of the vehicle.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
350
854
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
63
854
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The referred-to limitations are directed to the abstract idea itself (the mathematical algorithm). An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image10.png
440
849
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the performance of the underlying railway vehicle is not improved in any manner.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
410
862
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the measuring of the acceleration and velocity values needs to be performed because such values are required to perform the algorithm. The recitation that the accelerometer records 3-axis data is merely a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner of producing accelerometer measurements [See the discussion of Pedley, above]. The recitation that the velocity values are GPS or wheel/axle speed sensors provided is merely a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner of producing velocity measurements [See the discussion of Surpi and Lee, above].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhong et al., A Calibration Method of UAV Accelerometer Based on Levenberg-Marquardt Iteration Algorithm, IEEE, 2018 – See Equations 1 and 2
US 20140136048 A1 (cited by the Applicant in the IDS of 9/2/2022) – ACCELEROMETER LEVELING. See Paragraphs [0052]-[0053].
US 20130332105 A1 – Mounting Angle Calibration For An In-Vehicle Accelerometer Device
US 20180313868 A1 – CALIBRATING SENSOR UNIT ORIENTATION FOR USE IN A VEHICLE MONITORING SYSTEM
US 20130081442 A1 – Method Of Correcting The Orientation Of A Freely Installed Accelerometer In A Vehicle
US 20160377650 A1 – Real-Time Accelerometer Calibration
US 20160040992 A1 – POSITIONING APPARATUS AND GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM, METHOD OF DETECTING SATELLITE SIGNALS
US 20130325251 A1 – DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CALIBRATION OF AN ACCELERATION SENSOR
US 20110029180 A1 – Device For Measuring The Movement Of A Self-Guided Vehicle
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857