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. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 are maintained. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2, 4, 7, 12, and 14-15 are maintained. A response to applicant’s arguments filed 27 January 2026 can be found at the end of this Office Action. This Office Action is 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, 3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 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) (para. [0004]) detection system (110) (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one sensor (112);
a detection node (200) in communication with (as seen by wire connecting 200 and sensors 112) the at least one sensor (112), the detection node (200) comprising a microcontroller (para. [0021], line 7) and a power source (para. [0025], lines 27-30); and
an alert station (190) (Fig. 7) in communication with the detection node (para. [0047], lines 16-21), the alert station (190) comprising an indicator (192) and a power source (para. [0048], lines 1-4), wherein the detection node (200) (Fig. 1), based on data (para. [0022], lines 1-5) from the at least one sensor (112), is configured to detect (para. [0025], lines 1-4) an SRT (para. [0004]) event and activate (para. [0022]) the indicator (192) (Fig. 7) of the alert station (190).
In regards to claim 3, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node (200) (Fig. 1) comprises an analog front end controller (“analog processor”, para. [0021], lines 4-9) comprising an analog to digital converter (“analog circuit designed to process information”, para. [0021], lines 4-9), the at least one sensor (112) (Fig. 1) is connected (as seen by wire connecting 200 and sensors 112) to the analog to digital converter (“analog circuit designed to process information”, para. [0021], lines 4-9), and the analog to digital converter (“analog circuit designed to process information”, para. [0021], lines 4-9) is connected to the microcontroller (para. [0021], line 7).
In regards to claim 5, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the power source of the detection node (200) (Fig. 1) comprises at least one of a battery and a solar panel (para. [0025], lines 27-34).
In regards to claim 6, Bartek discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the power source of the alert station (190) (Fig. 7) comprises at least one of a battery and a solar panel (para. [0048], lines 1-4).
In regards to claim 8, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node (200) (Fig. 1) is wirelessly connected (detection node 200 is included with switch gap detection system 110, para. [0048], lines 8-10) to the alert station (190) (Fig. 7).
In regards to claim 9, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the indicator (192) (Fig. 7) of the alert station (190) comprises at least one of a light (para. [0047], lines 21-27) and a horn (para. [0047], lines 30-32).
In regards to claim 10, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the alert station (190) (Fig. 7) is configured to be in communication with a local network and/or cloud (para. [0022]).
In regards to claim 11, Bartek discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detection node (200) comprises an alarm indicator (para. [0022]) configured to provide an indication once the SRT event (para. [0004]) is detected (para. [0025], lines 1-4).
In regards to claim 13, Bartek discloses a railyard switch run through (SRT) (para. [0004]) detection system (110) (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one sensor (112); and
a detection node (200) in communication with (as seen by wire connecting 200 and sensors 112) the at least one sensor (112), the detection node (200) comprising a microcontroller (para. [0021], line 7), an analog front end controller (“analog processor”, para. [0021], lines 4-9), and a power source (para. [0025], lines 27-30), the analog front end controller comprising an analog to digital converter (“analog circuit designed to process information”, para. [0021], lines 4-9), with the at least one sensor (112) connected (as seen by wire connecting 200 and sensors 112) to the analog to digital converter (“analog circuit designed to process information”, para. [0021], lines 4-9) and the analog to digital converter (“analog circuit designed to process information”, para. [0021], lines 4-9) connected to the microcontroller (para. [0021], line 7), wherein the detection node (200), based on data (para. [0022], lines 1-5) from the at least one sensor (112), is configured to detect (para. [0025], lines 1-4) an SRT (para. [0004]) event.
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, 4, 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 (112) (Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of strain gauges.
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 4, Bartek teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the analog front end controller (“analog processor”, para. [0021], lines 4-9) comprises a temperature sensor input.
Bartek does not teach a temperature sensor input.
Mian teaches a temperature sensor input (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 analog front end controller of Bartek to include a temperature sensor input as taught by Mian with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the amount of parameters monitored to increase overall safety, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine equivalents which are known to be useful for the same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 2144.06(I).
In regards to claim 14, A method of detecting a railyard switch run through (SRT) event (para. [0004]), the method comprising:
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 (200) (Fig. 1);
transmitting data (para. [0021], lines 9-17) from the at least one strain gauge to the detection node (200); and
identifying the SRT event (para. [0004]) using a processor (para. [0021], lines 4-9) by comparing data (para. [0022], lines 1-5) from the at least one strain gauge to baseline stain gauge data for switch traffic and position changes (para. [0025], lines 1-10).
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, para. [0022]) of the SRT event (Bartek, para. [0004]).
Claim(s) 7 is 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 a plurality of detection nodes (200) (Fig. 1) in communication (para. [0047], lines 16-21) with the alert station (190) (Fig. 7).
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).
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 (200) (Fig. 1) comprises an enclosure, an installation bracket , and an antenna for wireless communication (detection node 200 is included with switch gap detection system 110, para. [0048], lines 8-10) with the alert station (190) (Fig. 7), the microcontroller received within the enclosure, the installation bracket is connected to the enclosure and configured to secure the detection node to an object or ground surface.
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 filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Bartek (US 20230060665 A1) including a switch gap warning member 190, a warning display 192, “analog circuit designed to process information”, and paragraph [0022] are not disclosed in Bartek’s priority document (U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/239,137) and thus Bartek has an earliest effective filing date of 31 August 2022 rather than the filing date of 31 August 2021 of the provisional patent.
Examiner responds in disagreement, pg. 3, para. 2 of the provisional application's specification states "visual and/or audible alerts," "switch gap open/closed sensors," “main control unit with a microprocessor,” and "cloud based cellular connectivity and functionality." Thus, Bartek’s priority document does contain the teachings of Bartek utilized in the rejections above, and thus Bartek has an earliest effective filing date of 31 August 2021.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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