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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed 10/29/2025 remedies the issues noted in the notice of non-compliance. Claims 1, and 5-7 remain pending in the application, of which claims 1 and 5 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the previous 103 rejection fails to teach the newly amended claims. However, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is used to describe both a level of vibration and a color, but there is no definition of what is “relatively low” or “relatively high” for vibration data or what is “relatively dark” or “relatively bright” in color. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "learning the imaged image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, an image is created from vibration data and an image is created after wavelet transformation. There is no distinction as to if “the imaged image” is one of these images or another image.
Claim 5 recites that a check is made to determine if “the features are salient” but the requirements for what would make a feature salient are not defined. Therefore, the term “salient” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “salient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein in the machine learning". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While a CNN and a “learning” is recited in claim 1 it is not “a machine learning” and it becomes unclear If this machine learning is intended to be that learning or another learning step.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the number of filters". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no filters have been defined in the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the image of fractured rail" and “the image of normal rail”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as no such images have been defined. There is only a “image” created using the vibration data and an “image” created after a wavelet-transformation, and no distinction of 2 images or what would create the normal versus fracture image.
The Examiner notes that any dependent claim also inherits the limitations of the claims on which they depend, and therefore the indefiniteness of claims 5-7 also depends on the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Due to the significant level of indefiniteness of claims 1 and 5-7 the examiner is unable to create a broadest reasonable interpretation on which to apply art.
Conclusion
Despite the inability to apply art to the claims as presented, the Examiner makes the following prior art of record , as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220135094: teaching the use spectrograms, FFTs and acoustic sensors in the determination of faults in train rails. Specifically, thresholds are also used to determine the fault states.
US 20220381934: which uses FFT, wavelet transformation and neural networks in fault determination of infrastructure.
US 20180181136, US 20180284758 and US 20210212606 which all disclose various uses of color mapping and coding in the identification of states and faults.
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 STEPHANIE E BLOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3555. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7a-4p, F 7a-11a.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights