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 02/16/2025 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 1-20 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.
Each of claims 1, 10, and 17 recites that one or more processors identify “one or more of an instability condition or a derailment condition.” The conjunctive/disjunctive construct “one or more of … or …” renders the scope unclear as to whether the processors must be capable of detecting exactly one of the conditions, at least one of the conditions, or both conditions, and whether “one or more of” modifies the set or each item. Although the specification includes a definitions paragraph addressing “one or more of … or …” constructions, see Spec. ¶[0064], that paragraph itself embraces seven different permutations and does not resolve which of those permutations applies where later claims use “one or more of … or …” with additional nested logical conditions. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims are uncertain.
Applicant may resolve the ambiguity by replacing the phrase with a clearer formulation such as “an abnormal condition selected from the group consisting of an instability condition and a derailment condition,” or “an abnormal condition comprising an instability condition and/or a derailment condition,” and by aligning the threshold logic accordingly throughout the claims.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TEXT
Replace “identify an abnormal condition of the vehicle that includes one or more of an instability condition or a derailment condition” with “identify an abnormal condition of the vehicle selected from an instability condition and a derailment condition.”
Replace “identify one or more of an instability condition or a derailment condition” with “identify an instability condition and/or a derailment condition.”
Claim limitation “17” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 17 recites “a sensor means configured to measure an acceleration, a linear displacement, and an angular displacement of a vehicle during movement of the vehicle,” which invokes § 112(f) because “means” is used with purely functional language. The specification ties “sensor means” generally to “at least one accelerometric sensor and at least one gyroscopic sensor,” and further describes deriving position via “successive integrations in time of linear and angular accelerations … within a moving time window,” see Spec. ¶¶[0025], [0047]. However, as claimed, the “sensor means” must itself be “configured to measure … linear displacement,” a function that in the disclosure is performed by processors executing integration algorithms rather than by the “sensor means” per se. The specification does not set forth corresponding structure for a sensor that directly measures linear displacement (e.g., LVDT, optical encoder, laser rangefinder) and that is linked to this claim element. Absent identification of corresponding structure (or a clear link of a disclosed structure to this function), the scope of “sensor means” is indefinite under § 112(f).
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TEXT
Replace “sensor means configured to measure an acceleration, a linear displacement, and an angular displacement” with one of the following and ensure supporting disclosure is expressly linked:
Option A (structural): “one or more sensors comprising at least one accelerometer, at least one gyroscope, and at least one displacement sensor selected from an LVDT, optical encoder, magnetostrictive sensor, or laser rangefinder, the sensors configured to measure acceleration, linear displacement, and angular displacement, respectively.”
Option B (functional split): “one or more sensors comprising at least one accelerometer and at least one gyroscope; and processors configured to compute linear displacement by integrating measured acceleration within a bounded window and to compute angular displacement from gyroscope measurements.”
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 recite “the angular displacement being no greater than an angular displacement threshold” and “the angular displacement being greater than the angular displacement threshold,” but the antecedent “angular displacement” is introduced in dependent claim 5 (system) and dependent claim 14 (method). As drafted, claims 6/7 depend from claim 5 and claims 15/16 depend from claim 14, which supplies the missing antecedent. Please ensure the dependency chain is preserved if applicant amends claim 5 or claim 14; otherwise, the term “the angular displacement” would lack proper antecedent basis.
SUGGESTED PRACTICE
If claim 5 or claim 14 is amended away, incorporate explicit introduction in claims 6/7 and 15/16, respectively, e.g., “an angular displacement of the vehicle being ….”
SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVE TERMS — “LOW PASS FILTER” IN CLAIMS 8–9 AND 19–20
No rejection is made at this time. However, “low pass filter” could be construed as a relative term unless tied to objective structural features. The specification thoroughly describes a structural resin encapsulant and mechanical filter pads that attenuate high-frequency content before it reaches the board/sensors (enclosure 10; resin 84; electronic board 80), providing objective boundaries. If applicant amends, keep the structural description to preserve definite scope.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1: US 2016/0325767 A1 (LeFebvre et al.) — “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING OPERATIONAL ANOMALIES IN TRAIN CONSISTS AND RAILCARS.” Key numerals: WSN 104, CMU 101, PWG 102, housing 400/400a/400b, accelerometer 404, temperature sensor 406, mechanical filter 410a/410b, potting material inside housing, main board 402a, daughter board 402b; derailment monitoring and hunting event detection; acceleration thresholds.
REFERENCE 2: EP 1 236 633 A2 — “Verfahren zur allgemeinen Entgleisungsdetektion.” Key features: multiple acceleration sensors BS1–BS4 at axle bearings (Lagerschalen); evaluation device ASW generates characteristic values KEN1–KEN4; thresholds SOL1–SOL4; wheel rotational frequency DFS; phase difference PHI; multi-criterion evaluation to distinguish derailment from other events; low-pass filtering of sensor signals.
REFERENCE 3: US 2016/0159381 A1 — “Systems and methods for vehicle control” (examination system). Key numerals: examination system 400/method 400, controller implements remedial actions including slowing/stopping; car sensor 332; onboard continuous monitoring; control of speed based on detected conditions.
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.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS BY REFERENCE COMBINATIONS
Claims 1, 3–9, 10, 12–16, and 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claims 2, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 1
A system comprising: a sensor configured to measure an acceleration and a displacement of a vehicle during movement of the vehicle; and one or more processors configured to examine the acceleration and the displacement to identify an abnormal condition of the vehicle that includes one or more of an instability condition or a derailment condition of the vehicle, the one or more processors configured to identify the instability condition responsive to the acceleration that is measured being no greater than an acceleration threshold and the displacement that is measured being no greater than a displacement threshold, the one or more processors configured to identify the derailment condition responsive to the acceleration that is measured being greater than the acceleration threshold and the displacement that is measured being greater than the displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
“a sensor configured to measure an acceleration and a displacement of a vehicle during movement of the vehicle”
Reference 1 discloses a railcar-mounted wireless sensor node (WSN) 104 housed in a protective housing 400/400a/400b that includes an accelerometer 404 and may include other sensors such as a gyroscope and a displacement sensor. The text expressly states that “virtually any type of sensor could be used, including … an accelerometer 404, a gyroscope, [and] a displacement sensor,” within the WSN 104 that is mounted on the moving railcar 103. This satisfies sensing acceleration, and provides for displacement sensing within the same module, i.e., the “sensor” as a sensor assembly.
“one or more processors configured to examine the acceleration and the displacement to identify an abnormal condition of the vehicle … instability condition or a derailment condition”
Reference 1 provides processors on the main board 402a (and optionally on board 402b and within CMU 101) that execute firmware to filter and analyze sensor data. The system detects abnormal operating conditions including derailment, hunting, and extreme vehicle dynamics via distributed processing across WSN 104 and CMU 101. The WSN/CMU are expressly configured to analyze acceleration data against multiple thresholds and generate messages for conditions such as “possible derailment,” “vertical hunting,” and “lateral hunting,” which are “abnormal conditions.”
“identify the instability condition responsive to the acceleration … no greater than an acceleration threshold and the displacement … no greater than a displacement threshold”
Reference 1 teaches programmable thresholds for peak and RMS acceleration magnitudes at the WSN 104; the CMU 101 uses multi-node evidence to identify railcar body dynamics, including hunting (instability-type events), when acceleration-based thresholds indicative of hunting are met, while derailment thresholds are different and higher. The mapping of categories by thresholding is taught. Reference 2 complements this by teaching a multi-criterion thresholding framework: multiple accelerometric signals (BS1–BS4) are processed by an evaluation unit ASW to form characteristic values (KEN1–KEN4), which are compared to thresholds (SOL1–SOL4) and, based on combinations and phase differences (PHI), the system distinguishes derailment from less severe states and initiates actions accordingly. A POSITA would readily apply analogous thresholding to a displacement channel (which Reference 1 already contemplates via a “displacement sensor”). Thus, using acceleration not exceeding an instability threshold with displacement not exceeding a displacement threshold conforms to the thresholded state-classification logic of References 1 and 2.
“identify the derailment condition responsive to the acceleration … greater than the acceleration threshold and the displacement … greater than the displacement threshold”
Reference 1 expressly provides a derailment event processing routine and WSN-programmed thresholds that, when exceeded, generate derailment messages (with CMU 101 correlation). Reference 2 teaches that when characteristic values exceed respective thresholds (SOL1–SOL4), the system identifies a derailment and actuates emergency braking; the reference also uses multi-parameter cross-checks (e.g., PHI and DFS) to elevate confidence. Employing concurrent exceedance of acceleration and displacement thresholds to flag derailment is a predictable, straightforward synthesis of the two teachings.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a displacement measurement and corresponding threshold into Reference 1’s WSN/CMU thresholding framework (derailment and hunting detection) in view of Reference 2’s multi-criterion, threshold-based derailment/instability discrimination. Reference 1 expressly contemplates including a “displacement sensor” in WSN 104, and already uses programmable thresholds and event classification for acceleration-driven phenomena (derailment, hunting). Reference 2 teaches that using multiple parameters and associated thresholds improves discrimination between precursors (instability) and derailment and supports robust triggering. Combining them yields a system that concurrently evaluates acceleration and displacement against respective thresholds to classify instability versus derailment, which is nothing more than applying a known classification approach (multi-criterion thresholding per Reference 2) to an expressly suggested additional signal (displacement sensor per Reference 1) to achieve predictable performance benefits (reduced false positives/negatives, improved confidence).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to change movement of the vehicle responsive to identifying the instability condition.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 transmits events to higher-level controllers (PWG 102) for operational action on the train consist (e.g., adjust operation upon detection of dangerous dynamics). Reference 3 explicitly teaches that a controller implements remedial control actions including slowing or stopping the vehicle responsive to detected unsafe or deteriorated conditions gathered from onboard sensors (car sensor 332, among others). Integrating Reference 3’s control action with Reference 1’s condition detection provides the “processors configured to change movement of the vehicle responsive to identifying the instability condition.”
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 2)
It would have been obvious to couple Reference 1’s onboard detection (CMU 101, WSN 104) with Reference 3’s taught control actions because closed-loop safety systems routinely actuate braking or speed reductions upon detecting adverse conditions, thereby preventing escalation to derailment and improving safety. Reference 3 teaches exactly this control coupling in a rail context; adding such control to Reference 1 is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 3
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured to measure the displacement as a linear displacement of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1’s WSN 104 expressly contemplates inclusion of a “displacement sensor” among its onboard sensor types. Displacement sensors in the rail domain commonly measure linear position/displacement (e.g., linear variable displacement transducers, optical encoders), and are within the sensor families identified in Reference 1’s inclusive listing of sensors that may be used in the WSN 104 to monitor operational parameters of the moving railcar 103. Thus a POSITA would implement the displacement channel as a linear displacement sensor in the WSN 104.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/SELECT (CLAIM 3)
Selecting linear displacement as the sensed displacement parameter is a routine design choice among known displacement modalities explicitly suggested in Reference 1’s “virtually any type of sensor … including … a displacement sensor” statement; linear displacement correlates strongly with lateral/vertical excursions of a car body pertinent to instability/derailment, making it an obvious choice to improve detection fidelity.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 4
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured to measure the displacement as an angular displacement of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches that the WSN 104 may include a gyroscope in addition to accelerometer 404. The system further classifies “body pitch,” “body roll,” and “body yaw” events from WSNs 104 mounted at opposite ends of the railcar, which are angular displacement–type phenomena of the railcar body. A POSITA would derive angular displacement from the gyroscope channel (gyroscope measures angular rate; processor integrates to angle), which Reference 1’s processing architecture supports.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/SELECT (CLAIM 4)
Measuring angular displacement using a gyroscope integrated in the WSN 104 is an expressly contemplated addition in Reference 1 and is standard practice to detect body roll/yaw/pitch associated with instability; it is therefore an obvious implementation detail.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 5
The system of claim 1, wherein the displacement is a linear displacement, the displacement threshold is a linear displacement threshold, and the sensor is configured to measure an angular displacement of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS
Combining the selections of claims 3 and 4, Reference 1 supports having both a linear displacement sensor and a gyroscope within the WSN 104 (sensor set expressly open-ended) with thresholds applied through the WSN/CMU processing. Reference 2’s multi-criteria thresholding framework further teaches establishing separate thresholds per parameter (e.g., SOL1–SOL4 per characteristic KEN1–KEN4), which maps to “the displacement threshold is a linear displacement threshold” alongside angular metrics.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 5)
Using multiple, parameter-specific thresholds is taught by Reference 2 and yields predictable benefits (robust discrimination). Given Reference 1’s expandable sensor suite, adding both linear and angular displacement channels with distinct thresholds would be an obvious, beneficial extension.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 6
The system of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the instability condition responsive to the acceleration that is measured being no greater than the acceleration threshold, the linear displacement that is measured being no greater than the displacement threshold, and the angular displacement being no greater than an angular displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches programmable thresholds for acceleration (WSN-level), and Reference 2 teaches the evaluation unit ASW comparing multiple characteristic values to respective thresholds to decide event class. Applying “no greater than” conditions to all three parameters corresponds to Reference 2’s concept of lower characteristic magnitudes indicating a non-derailment (or precursor/less severe) state, while Reference 1’s hunting-related messages (instability-type) occur below derailment thresholds. A POSITA would thus configure processors so that if all three remain below their respective thresholds, the classification is instability (not derailment).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 6)
The combination is a straightforward rule design based on References 1 and 2: below derailment thresholds → instability/precursor state; above → derailment. Implementing a three-parameter “no greater than” conjunctive rule is a routine control/detection design choice yielding predictable improvements in false-positive control.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 7
The system of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the derailment condition responsive to the acceleration that is measured being greater than the acceleration threshold, the linear displacement that is measured being greater than the displacement threshold, and the angular displacement being greater than the angular displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1’s derailment detection is threshold-triggered at WSN 104 and confirmed at CMU 101. Reference 2 teaches multi-criterion threshold crossing to identify derailment. Extending Reference 1 to require concurrent exceedance of acceleration, linear displacement, and angular displacement thresholds is a predictable instantiation of Reference 2’s multi-parameter decision logic.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 7)
Using concurrent threshold exceedances across multiple modalities to assert derailment increases confidence and aligns with Reference 2’s teaching of multiple characteristic values and thresholds; doing so with the WSN/CMU architecture of Reference 1 is an obvious design refinement with recognized benefits.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 8
The system of claim 1, further comprising: an enclosure in which the sensor and the one or more processors are disposed, the sensor and the one or more processors separated from the enclosure by a low pass filter.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 shows the WSN 104 components installed within housing 400 (enclosure 400a/400b) with potting material provided through openings in housing 400 to isolate, encapsulate, and seal the components. The potting material is used to tune the WSN by absorbing undesirable accelerations (i.e., mechanically low-pass filtering before the signals reach the electronics), and mechanical filter elements 410a/410b further filter high/low frequency acceleration components. The potting sits between the enclosure and the electronics/sensors (main board 402a/daughter board 402b containing accelerometer 404), thereby structurally separating them with a damping/low-pass medium.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/READ (CLAIM 8)
No combination needed; Reference 1 alone teaches the encapsulating potting and mechanical filtering between enclosure and electronics as a low-pass mechanism for vibration isolation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 9
The system of claim 8, wherein the low pass filter is a resin disposed between the enclosure and each of the sensor and the one or more processors.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 expressly teaches potting material inside housing 400 to isolate and tune the WSN 104 (e.g., flexible urethane or other resins), which by material type is a resin. The potting fills the space between enclosure 400 and the boards/sensors (402a/402b with accelerometer 404), thereby constituting a resin disposed between the enclosure and both the sensor and the processors.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/READ (CLAIM 9)
No additional combination is required; Reference 1’s encapsulant is a resin used as a low-pass filter as claimed.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 10
A method comprising: measuring an acceleration of a vehicle during movement of the vehicle using a sensor; measuring a displacement of the vehicle during the movement of the vehicle using the sensor; and identifying one or more of an instability condition or a derailment condition of the vehicle using one or more processors, the instability condition identified responsive to the acceleration that is measured being no greater than an acceleration threshold and the displacement that is measured being no greater than a displacement threshold, the derailment condition identified responsive to the acceleration that is measured being greater than the acceleration threshold and the displacement that is measured being greater than the displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 measures acceleration using accelerometer 404 within WSN 104 and supports a displacement sensor within the same unit for movement of the railcar 103. The processors (on board 402a/402b and CMU 101) identify abnormal conditions (instability/derailment) using threshold logic; Reference 2 supplies the multi-criterion thresholding to map “no greater than” to instability and “greater than” to derailment, as discussed for claim 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 10)
Same rationale as claim 1; method steps correspond to the apparatus operation taught by the combination of References 1 and 2.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 11
The method of claim 10, further comprising: changing movement of the vehicle responsive to identifying the instability condition.
ANALYSIS
Reference 3’s method 400 implements remedial actions including slowing/stopping movement responsive to detected unsafe/deteriorated conditions using onboard continuous monitoring; coupling this with Reference 1’s detection provides the claimed step.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 11)
As with claim 2, adding a standard closed-loop control response (slow/stop) to Reference 1’s detection is an obvious, beneficial integration per Reference 3.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 12
The method of claim 10, wherein the displacement is measured by the sensor as a linear displacement of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS
As in claim 3, Reference 1’s WSN 104 contemplates a displacement sensor; configuring it to measure linear displacement is a routine selection for vehicle body motion monitoring.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/SELECT (CLAIM 12)
Selecting linear displacement in the sensor suite suggested by Reference 1 is an obvious design choice, motivated by its relevance to lateral/vertical excursions pertinent to instability/derailment discrimination.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 13
The method of claim 10, wherein the displacement is measured by the sensor as an angular displacement of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS
As in claim 4, Reference 1 contemplates a gyroscope within WSN 104 and classifies body roll/yaw/pitch events using the sensor set; processors can obtain angular displacement from the gyro.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/SELECT (CLAIM 13)
Obvious selection of gyroscope-derived angular displacement to capture body attitude dynamics per Reference 1.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 14
The method of claim 10, wherein the displacement is measured by the sensor as a linear displacement, the displacement threshold is a linear displacement threshold, and further comprising: measuring an angular displacement of the vehicle using the sensor.
ANALYSIS
Combines the linear displacement channel (claim 12) with angular displacement (claim 13) using the open-ended WSN 104 sensor suite and separate thresholds per parameter as taught by Reference 2’s multi-threshold approach.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 14)
An obvious multi-parameter extension using expressly contemplated sensors and known thresholding practice to improve discrimination.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 15
The method of claim 14, wherein the instability condition is identified responsive to the acceleration that is measured being no greater than the acceleration threshold, the linear displacement that is measured being no greater than the displacement threshold, and the angular displacement being no greater than an angular displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
Same analysis as claim 6 in method form: References 1 and 2 support conjunctive “no greater than” criteria as an instability/precursor classification rule below derailment thresholds.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 15)
Routine decision-rule design following References 1 and 2.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 16
The method of claim 15, wherein the derailment condition is identified responsive to the acceleration that is measured being greater than the acceleration threshold, the linear displacement that is measured being greater than the displacement threshold, and the angular displacement that is measured being greater than the angular displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
Same analysis as claim 7 in method form: concurrent exceedance across parameters is a predictable multi-criterion derailment trigger as taught by Reference 2; implemented within Reference 1’s WSN/CMU architecture.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 16)
As above; obvious for improved confidence and reduced false alarms.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 17
A system comprising: a sensor means configured to measure an acceleration, a linear displacement, and an angular displacement of a vehicle during movement of the vehicle; and one or more processors configured to examine the acceleration, the linear displacement, and the angular displacement to identify one or more of an instability condition or a derailment condition of the vehicle, the one or more processors configured to identify the instability condition responsive to the acceleration that is measured being no greater than an acceleration threshold, the linear displacement that is measured being no greater than a linear displacement threshold, and the angular displacement that is measured being no greater than an angular displacement threshold, the one or more processors configured to identify the derailment condition responsive to the acceleration that is measured being greater than the acceleration threshold, the linear displacement that is measured being greater than the linear displacement threshold, and the angular displacement that is measured being greater than the angular displacement threshold.
ANALYSIS
As discussed for claims 1 and 5–7, Reference 1’s WSN 104 can include accelerometer 404, gyroscope, and a displacement sensor within housing 400, while processors on board 402a/402b and CMU 101 implement thresholded analysis; Reference 2 teaches multi-criterion thresholding to separate instability-like versus derailment conditions. The means-plus characterization is addressed in § 112 above; for § 103 purposes, the underlying structure/function is obvious from References 1 and 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 17)
Same motivation as claim 1, applied to the three-parameter sensor suite and rule set expressly contemplated by the combined teachings.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 18
The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are configured to change movement of the vehicle responsive to identifying the instability condition.
ANALYSIS
As in claims 2 and 11, Reference 3 teaches the controller slowing or stopping movement responsive to detected deteriorated/unsafe conditions; integrating that with Reference 1’s detection logic satisfies the limitation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 18)
Same as claims 2/11; predictable safety benefit via closed-loop actuation upon detection.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 19
The system of claim 17, further comprising: an enclosure in which the sensor means and the one or more processors are disposed, the sensor means and the one or more processors separated from the enclosure by a low pass filter.
ANALYSIS
As in claim 8, Reference 1 discloses WSN 104 electronics and sensors potted within enclosure 400 with potting material tuned to absorb undesirable accelerations and mechanical filter elements 410a/410b; together these provide low-pass separation between enclosure and electronics/sensors.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/READ (CLAIM 19)
No combination required; taught by Reference 1.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CLAIM 20
The system of claim 19, wherein the low pass filter is a resin disposed between the enclosure and each of the sensor means and the one or more processors.
ANALYSIS
As in claim 9, Reference 1 uses resin potting (e.g., flexible urethane; epoxies; polyurethanes; silicone compounds) within housing 400 to isolate and tune the device, i.e., a resin disposed between the enclosure and the electronics/sensors providing low-pass filtering.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE/READ (CLAIM 20)
No combination required; taught by Reference 1.
Response to Arguments
APPLICANT’S SUMMARY OF GROUNDS AND CLAIM GROUPING IS NOT FULLY ACCURATE
Applicant states, in summary, that “Claims 1, 3–10, 12–17, and 19–20” stand rejected over LeFebvre in view of Stengg, and that “Claims 2, 11, and 19” stand rejected over LeFebvre in view of Stengg in further view of Fahmy.
As set forth in the Office Action, claim 19 was applied with the enclosure/low-pass/resin teaching and was not applied for the “change movement” feature. The “change movement” feature was applied to the claims that actually recite changing movement responsive to identifying instability (claims 2 and 11, and claim 18 if present in the group). Accordingly, to the extent Applicant’s traversal assumes claim 19 includes the “change movement” limitation, that portion of the traversal does not address the actual ground applied to claim 19.
The substantive traversal, however, focuses on the displacement-threshold logic in independent claims 1/10/17, and that traversal is addressed below.
======
APPLICANT’S PRINCIPAL TRAVERSAL: “DISPLACEMENT THRESHOLD” IS NOT TAUGHT OR SUGGESTED
Applicant argues that LeFebvre mentions “a displacement sensor” only once, and that LeFebvre does not teach comparing measured displacement to a displacement threshold for identifying an instability condition or derailment condition.
Applicant further argues that Stengg cannot cure this alleged deficiency because Stengg is said to teach multiple accelerometric signals (BS1–BS4) processed to characteristic values (KEN1–KEN4) compared to thresholds (SOL1–SOL4), and “displacement is not mentioned a single time” in Stengg.
Applicant concludes there is no motivation to modify LeFebvre to include a displacement threshold and that the Office Action relies on hindsight.
======
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: THE TRAVERSAL IS NOT PERSUASIVE
The rejection does not require that LeFebvre expressly use the exact phrase “displacement threshold,” nor does it require that Stengg expressly disclose a “displacement sensor.” The legal and technical question under § 103 is whether the combined teachings of the references, together with the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have made the claimed subject matter as a whole obvious at the time of the invention.
Here, Applicant’s traversal treats “displacement threshold” as though it must be disclosed verbatim in a single reference to support a § 103 rejection. That position is not adopted.
The displacement-threshold aspect of the rejection is based on the following straightforward, technically grounded rationale:
First, LeFebvre expressly contemplates inclusion of a displacement sensor within the sensor node architecture (Applicant acknowledges LeFebvre contains the recital “a displacement sensor”). A displacement sensor necessarily provides a displacement signal that varies as the vehicle moves and/or as the monitored structure changes position.
Second, LeFebvre also uses threshold-based decision logic for sensor-derived quantities (Applicant acknowledges that LeFebvre uses thresholds at WSN 104, at least for acceleration magnitudes, and uses those thresholds to categorize events such as hunting and derailment). Thus, LeFebvre teaches a monitoring architecture in which sensor outputs are evaluated against predetermined limits/thresholds to classify abnormal operating conditions.
Third, applying the known, already-used threshold-comparison technique in LeFebvre to another expressly contemplated sensor output within the same LeFebvre monitoring architecture (namely, the displacement sensor output) is a routine, predictable design choice within ordinary skill. This is particularly true in rail vehicle monitoring where thresholding is commonly used to suppress nuisance events and to assert alarm states when a measured signal crosses a predetermined boundary. The claim does not require any specialized or unconventional displacement-threshold algorithm; it requires only that measured displacement be compared against a displacement threshold as part of classification logic.
Fourth, Stengg is applied to reinforce that multi-criterion, threshold-based classification for derailment detection is known and desirable. Stengg’s use of multiple sensor signals BS1–BS4 and characteristic values KEN1–KEN4 compared to thresholds SOL1–SOL4 illustrates that applying thresholds to multiple measured channels to robustly classify derailment-type events was well within the ordinary design toolkit. Stengg is not relied upon to provide the displacement sensor itself; rather, it supports the multi-criterion thresholding framework and the rationale for improving discrimination between event categories using more than one measured parameter and more than one threshold.
Accordingly, even if LeFebvre mentions the displacement sensor only once, the teaching is still present: the LeFebvre architecture contemplates displacement sensing as an available measured channel in the same type of monitoring node that already uses thresholds for event classification. Under § 103, the combination does not require repeated mentions or an extended discussion of displacement thresholding; it requires a reasoned explanation of why a skilled artisan would have applied a known technique (threshold comparison) already used for one measured channel (acceleration) to another contemplated measured channel (displacement) in the same system to achieve predictable results (improved classification robustness, reduced false positives, improved derailment/instability discrimination).
This is not hindsight. The rationale does not depend on Applicant’s specification to supply the concept of “thresholding” displacement. Thresholding is a conventional signal evaluation technique already used in LeFebvre and in Stengg; the modification is simply applying that conventional technique to a sensor channel LeFebvre itself contemplates.
======
SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S STATEMENT THAT THE OFFICE ACTION “ADMITS” LeFEBVRE DOES NOT TEACH A DISPLACEMENT THRESHOLD
Applicant characterizes the Office Action’s explanation that a skilled artisan “would readily apply analogous thresholding to a displacement channel” as a “direct admission that LeFebvre does not teach the displacement threshold.”
That characterization is not adopted.
An Office Action may properly explain that a feature is supplied by (i) an express disclosure, (ii) a combination of disclosures, and/or (iii) a skilled artisan’s application of known techniques to a disclosed system consistent with the references’ teachings. Stating that an artisan would apply analogous thresholding is not an admission that the claim limitation is missing in a manner fatal to § 103; it is the articulated reasoning for why the limitation would have been obvious to implement given the references’ teachings and the state of the art.
In particular, where the claim limitation is not a specialized structure but a basic evaluation step (comparing a measured value against a threshold), and the primary reference already uses thresholding for another measured channel and contemplates the additional measured channel, the artisan’s application of thresholding to the additional channel is a classic predictable variation rather than an unsupported, hindsight-driven reconstruction.
======
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ASSERTION THAT “NO DISCLOSURE” EXISTS FOR USING THE DISPLACEMENT THRESHOLD TO IDENTIFY INSTABILITY OR DERAILMENT
Applicant asserts there is no disclosure of using a displacement threshold in identifying an instability condition or a derailment condition.
The claims at issue require, in substance, classification logic that uses both acceleration and displacement with threshold comparisons to distinguish instability versus derailment. As acknowledged by Applicant, LeFebvre already classifies events (including instability-type events such as hunting and derailment-type events) using thresholds at WSN 104. Once displacement is included as an additional measured channel (which LeFebvre contemplates), it would have been obvious to incorporate displacement into the same classification framework to enhance discrimination, because displacement excursions are directly relevant to derailment/instability phenomena and because adding a second independent channel is a known way to improve confidence.
Further, Stengg teaches that derailment detection logic can be strengthened by using multiple measured signals and multiple thresholds rather than relying on a single parameter. While Stengg may use acceleration-derived signals, the point for § 103 is that multi-criterion thresholding for derailment detection is conventional and provides an express reason to evaluate more than one measured channel against corresponding thresholds. The artisan would therefore have had a clear reason to incorporate displacement-thresholding into LeFebvre’s existing threshold-based classification architecture once displacement sensing is contemplated as an available channel.
======
EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THE § 103 REJECTIONS
Applicant’s remarks do not identify any amendment that removes the displacement-threshold logic from claims 1, 10, or 17. To the contrary, Applicant’s traversal is directed to that very limitation, indicating the limitation remains present in the amended independent claims.
Accordingly, the amendments do not, on their face, moot the displacement-threshold basis for the § 103 rejections. If the entered amended claims add further limitations (for example, a specific definition of “displacement,” a specific computation method, or additional constraints on when instability is asserted), those additional limitations should be evaluated against the applied references upon entry of the amendment, and the rejection rationale should be conformed as needed.
If Applicant believes the amendments materially change the displacement-threshold logic beyond what is addressed in the present traversal, Applicant is invited to specifically identify how the amended claim language differs from the limitations addressed in the traversal and where the applied references allegedly fail to meet the amended limitations.
======
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.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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