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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1 and 10, the limitation of “control station…without free visual range of the track” (emphasis added) lacks support in the specification. Applicant argues the following (emphasis added by examiner):
PNG
media_image1.png
374
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The portions of the specification that are referenced are:
PNG
media_image2.png
302
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
150
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
272
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Returning to the claim:
PNG
media_image5.png
390
742
media_image5.png
Greyscale
There is no mention, express or implied, of a control station without free visualization of the track. The claim is recited broadly such that there is no limits to what “the track” encompasses. Does “the track” merely include that portion (of the track) that is being worked on? Turning to the specification and drawings, the track is referenced by 4 (see below). Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation—consistent with the specification—of the track includes the entire structure, and more, upon which the vehicle 1 rests upon.
PNG
media_image6.png
226
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
310
972
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the amended language lacks support in the specification and is new matter.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are indefinite because there is insufficient support in the specification to understand the metes and bounds of what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4356771 to Theurer.
Regarding claim 1, Theurer discloses a control and operating system for working on a track with a track maintenance machine, with at least one machine frame movable on rail-based running gears (e.g. see Fig. 1; also co. 2, ln 60-68 noting a work vehicle 2 mounted for mobility on the track), comprising:
working devices 10,
a sensor and measuring system (e.g. 22, 26) for recording the position data of the working devices and for detecting objects of the track, as sleepers, rails, and obstacles,
an arrangement of cameras (see Fig. 1 with the arrangement of 26) for optical detection of the working devices and the working areas,
a control station 32 without free visual range of a respective working device and without free visual range of the track is set up at a location inside or outside the track maintenance machine and in that the control station comprises a display device for virtual operation, control, and/or monitoring of the track maintenance machine (as evident from Fig. 1, 32 is spatially removed from the work vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the control station comprises a display device 32 that is set up to display video/image recordings and/or additional information for supporting the operator (see Fig. 2, via television screen 35 of display device 32).
Regarding claim 3, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the display device is designed with at least one industrial panel (e.g. panel with 43), a flat screen monitor, and/or a video projector (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the display device is designed with industrial panels and/or flat screen monitors with touch screen functionality for operator input (as evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the control station is set up with a seat for one single machine operator in addition to operating elements (as evident from Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 10, Theurer discloses the method for operating a system according to claim 1, wherein the track maintenance machine is operated, controlled, and/or monitored virtually via a control station without a free visual range of a respective working device and without free visual range of the track (as evident from the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Theurer discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the video/image recordings of the cameras are displayed in real time at the control station via the display device (e.g. see col. 5, ln 24-38).
Regarding claim 13, Theurer discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein additional information, indications, and/or warnings on the ongoing work process are displayed as text, symbols, and/or graphic representations of any kind at the control station via the display device to support the operator (as evident from Fig. 2).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer.
Regarding claim 5, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the control station is equipped with a seat (as evident from Fig. 1) but does not explicitly disclose seats for two machine operators in addition to operating elements. However, examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate at least two portable “seats” (or even one in addition to the seat disclosed in Fig. 1) with the motivation of enabling a place for operators to rest to reduce fatigue.
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer in view of AT 519739 to Plasser.
Regarding claim 7, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cameras for optical detection of the working devices and the working areas are coupled with a computing unit, which is further coupled to a machine control by means of a higher-level computer system. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Plasser discloses such (e.g. as evident from Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Plasser with the motivation of reducing human errors regarding computations.
Regarding claim 11, Theurer discloses method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein after the video/image recordings have been captured by the cameras, a representation of the working devices, which has been assembled, rectified, and distortion-corrected by the computing unit, is displayed at the control station via the display device. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Plasser discloses such (e.g. see [0168] – [0178], [0191] – [0194]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Plasser with the motivation of reducing human errors regarding computations.
Regarding claim 14, Theurer discloses the method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose that wherein the position data recorded by the sensor and measuring system is evaluated by a higher-level computer system and compared with preset values and that a fully automatic actuation of the working devices is carried out by an algorithm via the machine control. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Plasser discloses the position data recorded by the sensor and measuring system is evaluated by a higher-level computer system and compared with preset values and that a fully automatic actuation of the working devices is carried out would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Plasser with the motivation of reducing human errors regarding computations.
Neither Theurer nor Plasser explicitly discloses that such is “carried out by an algorithm.” However, examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate carry such out by an algorithm with the motivation of enhancing automatic processes of the method.
Regarding claim 15, Theurer discloses the method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the position data recorded by the sensor and measuring system are evaluated by a higher-level computer system and compared with preset values, and in that the following work steps of the working devices are displayed as text and/or in graphic form on the display device by an algorithm, with these steps being carried out only after the operator's confirmation and/or modification by the machine control actuating the working devices correspondingly. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Plasser discloses the position data recorded by the sensor and measuring system are evaluated by a higher-level computer system and compared with preset values, and in that the following work steps of the working devices are displayed as text and/or in graphic form on the display device among other things interacting queries to enable / disable operations). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Plasser with the motivation of reducing human errors regarding computations.
Neither Theurer nor Plasser explicitly discloses that such is carried out by an algorithm. However, examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate carry such out by an algorithm with the motivation of enhancing automatic processes of the method.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer in view of US 20210223363 to Orellana.
Regarding claim 8, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the cameras for optical detection are designed as 3D cameras. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Orellana discloses such (e.g. see [0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Orellana with the motivation of determining spatial relationships between various objects.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer in view of Plasser in further view of US 20080150683 to Mikan et al. (“Mikan”).
Regarding claim 9, Theurer discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose as a secure form of transmission a VPN tunnel via a VPN router is set up for exchanging information and data between the control station and a higher-level computer system to control, operate, and monitor the track maintenance machine. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Plasser discloses a form of transmission, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Plasser with the motivation of reducing human errors regarding computations.
Theurer nor Plasser discloses a secure form of transmission being a VPN tunnel via a VPN router as claimed. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of network data transfer in the context of vehicle controls, Mikan discloses such (e.g. see [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Mikan with the motivation of enhancing and / or maintaining network security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of the asserted new matter amendment a new reference is applied. Thus, there are no specific arguments made by Applicant disputing rejections presented herein.
Conclusion
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 SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666