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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. A response to applicant’s arguments filed 26 May 2026 can be found at the end of this Office Action. Examiner notes that while the claims are being rejected in view of Bartek (US 20230060665 A1), the mappings utilized in the claims below are cited from US Provisional Patent Application No. 63/239,137 providing the Priority Date of 31 August 2021 to Bartek. This Office Action is Non-Final.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bartek (US 20230060665 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Bartek discloses a railyard switch run through (SRT) detection system (pg. 1, line 14-16) comprising:
at least one sensor (pg. 2, line 7, “sensor”);
a detection node (pg. 2, line 7, “processor”) in communication with (pg. 2, lines 7-12) the at least one sensor, the detection node comprising a microcontroller (pg. 3, line 6) and a power source (pg. 2, lines 16-18, “solar panel system”); and
an alert station (pg. 3, lines 5-6, “a 900 MHz radio, audio and/or visual alert components”) in communication with the detection node (pg. 2, lines 10-15), the alert station comprising an indicator (pg. 3, lines 5-6, “audio and/or visual alert components”) and a power source (pg. 2, lines 16-18), wherein the detection node, based on data (pg. 2, lines 25-28) from the at least one sensor, is configured to detect an SRT (pg. 2, lines 7-12) event and activate (pg. 2, lines 10-15) the indicator of the alert station.
In regards to claim 5, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the power source of the detection node comprises at least one of a battery and a solar panel (pg. 2, lines 16-18, “solar panel system”).
In regards to claim 6, Bartek discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the power source of the alert station comprises at least one of a battery and a solar panel (pg. 2, lines 16-18, “solar panel system”).
In regards to claim 8, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node is wirelessly connected (pg. 3, lines 5-6, “a 900 MHz radio”) to the alert station.
In regards to claim 10, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the alert station is configured to be in communication with a local network and/or cloud (pg. 3, line 5, “cloud based cellular connectivity and functionality”).
In regards to claim 11, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node comprises an alarm indicator configured to provide an indication once the SRT event (pg. 1, line 14-16) is detected (pg. 2, lines 7-12).
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) 2 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartek (US 20230060665 A1) in view of Mian (US 10906571 B2).
In regards to claim 2, Bartek teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises
Bartek does not teach a plurality of strain gauges.
Mian teaches a plurality (col. 9, lines 59-65) of strain gauges (col. 9, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensors of Bartek to include strain gauges as taught by Mian with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the speed and amount of data collection (see Mian, (col. 12, lines 60-63).
In regards to claim 14, A method of detecting a railyard switch run through (SRT) event (para. [0004]), the method comprising:
identifying the SRT event (pg. 2, lines 7-12) using a processor (pg. 2, line 7, “processor”) by comparing data (pg. 2, lines 7-10)
Bartek does not teach attaching at least one strain gauge to a component of a railyard switch stand; connecting the at least one strain gauge to a detection node; transmitting data from the at least one strain gauge; and comparing data from the at least one strain gauge to baseline strain gauge data.
Mian teaches attaching at least one strain gauge (col. 9, line 67) to a component of a railyard switch stand (col. 9, lines 62-65); connecting the at least one strain gauge (col. 9, line 67) to a detection node (col. 21, lines 26-35); transmitting data (col. 13, line 1) from the at least one strain gauge (col. 9, line 67); and comparing data (col. 12, lines 59-61) from the at least one strain gauge (col. 9, line 67) to baseline (col. 10, lines 1-2) strain gauge data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensors of Bartek to include strain gauges as taught by Mian with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the speed and amount of data collection (see Mian, (col. 12, lines 60-63).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Bartek as modified by Mian above teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: providing an alert indication (Bartek, pg. 3, lines 5-6, “a 900 MHz radio, audio and/or visual alert components”) of the SRT event (Bartek, pg. 2, lines 7-15).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartek (US 20230060665 A1) in view of Hammerschmidt (US 20160273991 A1).
In regards to claim 3, Bartek teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node comprises
Bartek does not teach an analog front end controller comprising an analog to digital converter, the at least one sensor is connected to the analog to digital converter, and the analog to digital converter is connected to the microcontroller.
Hammerschmidt teaches an analog front end controller (para. [0051], lines 6-7) comprising an analog to digital converter (40a, 52b) (Fig. 8), the at least one sensor (38a, 36a, 32a, 38b) is connected to the analog to digital converter (as seen in Fig. 8), and the analog to digital converter is connected to the microcontroller (para. [0051], lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bartek to include an analog front end controller comprising an analog to digital converter as taught by Hammerschmidt with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the system (see Hammerschmidt, para. [0042], lines 13-15).
In regards to claim 4, Bartek teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the analog front end controller (Hammerschmidt, para. [0051], lines 6-7) comprises a temperature sensor input (36a) (Hammerschmidt, Fig. 8).
In regards to claim 13, Bartek teaches a railyard switch run through (SRT) detection system (pg. 1, line 14-16) comprising:
at least one sensor (pg. 2, line 7, “sensor”);
a detection node (pg. 2, line 7, “processor”) in communication with (pg. 2, lines 7-12) the at least one sensor, the detection node comprising a microcontroller (pg. 3, line 6),
Bartek does not teach an analog front end controller comprising an analog to digital converter, the at least one sensor is connected to the analog to digital converter, and the analog to digital converter is connected to the microcontroller.
Hammerschmidt teaches an analog front end controller (para. [0051], lines 6-7) comprising an analog to digital converter (40a, 52b) (Fig. 8), the at least one sensor (38a, 36a, 32a, 38b) is connected to the analog to digital converter (as seen in Fig. 8), and the analog to digital converter is connected to the microcontroller (para. [0051], lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bartek to include an analog front end controller comprising an analog to digital converter as taught by Hammerschmidt with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the system (see Hammerschmidt, para. [0042], lines 13-15).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartek (US 20230060665 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Bartek teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising
While Bartek does not explicitly teach a plurality of detection nodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of detection nodes in communication with the alert station with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the total area monitored for an SRT event, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
In regards to claim 9, Bartek teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the indicator of the alert station comprises (pg. 3, lines 5-6, “audio and/or visual alert components”) at least one of a
While Bartek does not explicitly teach the visual and audio alerts being a light or a horn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the audio and/or visual alert components of Bartek to include a light and/or a horn with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the clarity of the alarm to operators, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartek (US 20230060665 A1) in view of Houghton (US 20200017131 A1).
In regards to claim 12, Bartek teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node comprises
Bartek does not teach an enclosure, an installation bracket, an antenna, the microcontroller received within the enclosure, and the enclosure connected to the installation bracket configured to secure the detection node to an object or ground surface.
Houghton teaches an enclosure (BOX) (Fig. 4A), an installation bracket (BRK2) (Fig. 2), an antenna (CA) (Fig. 4A), the microcontroller (U2) received within (as seen in Fig. 4A) the enclosure (BOX), and the enclosure (BOX) connected to an installation bracket (BRK2) (Fig. 2) configured to secure (as seen in Fig. 2) the system to an object (WIA) (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bartek to include an enclosure, an installation bracket, and an antenna as taught by Houghton with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the weather resistance of the system (see Houghton, para. [0048], lines 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 in regards to the Priority Date of the relied upon Bartek (US 20230060665 A1) have been considered but are not found persuasive. The examiner refers to the above claim rejections. The mappings utilized in regards to Bartek teachings are cited from Bartek’s US Provisional Patent Application No. 63/239,137 utilized to provide the Priority Date of 31 August 2021.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights