DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-29 are currently pending. Claims 11-16 and 19-21 are maintained in rejection. New claims 23-28 are additionally rejected. Claims 17, 18, 22 and 29 are indicated as having allowable subject matter. A response to Applicant Arguments filed 06/03/2026 can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 11-13, 19-21 and 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamaribuchi et al. (US 2012/0176217 A1).
Referring to Claim 11: Tamaribuchi discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a candidate operator (maintenance worker at terminal 200) is a confirmed operator (Para. [0120]);
transferring control of the equipment to the confirmed operator responsive to the determination that the candidate operator is the confirmed operator (Para. [0125-0127]), and the confirmed operator being therefor enabled to initiate the equipment to perform one or more of:
switching or securing one or both of an interlock and a crossing guard to prevent or block another vehicle from entering a section of a route, where the equipment is a wayside unit (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7);
engaging an emergency stop function to prevent the equipment from moving or from being moved, where the equipment is a vehicle, and the vehicle is or is not part of a vehicle group; and
de-energizing electrical equipment, where the equipment is an electricity providing device (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 12: Tamaribuchi discloses a method, wherein the equipment is a wayside unit (920), and the method further comprising signaling a central authority (100) that the section of the route is blocked, and the central authority does not and/or cannot direct another vehicle to enter the section of the route until the confirmed operator returns control over the equipment back to the central authority (Para. [0056-0057]) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 13: Tamaribuchi discloses a method, further comprising returning control of the equipment to the central authority from the confirmed operator (Fig. 12) (Para. [0189]).
Referring to Claim 19: Tamaribuchi discloses a system, comprising:
a controller (200) configured to one or more of:
determine that a candidate operator is a confirmed operator (Para. [0120]);
transfer control of the equipment to the confirmed operator responsive to the determination that the candidate operator is the confirmed operator (Para. [0125-0127]), and the confirmed operator being therefor enabled to initiate the equipment to perform one or more of:
switching or securing one or both of an interlock and a crossing guard to prevent or block another vehicle from entering a section of a route, where the equipment is a wayside unit (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7);
engaging an emergency stop function to prevent the equipment from moving or from being moved, where the equipment is a vehicle, and the vehicle is or is not part of a vehicle group; and
de-energizing electrical equipment, where the equipment is an electricity providing device (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 20: Tamaribuchi further discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the equipment is a wayside unit configured to control a route switch or interlock, and the confirmed operator can configure the switch or interlock to block or prevent another vehicle from entering a section of the route (maintenance work area) (Para. [0056] and [0128]) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 21: Tamaribuchi further discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the equipment is the vehicle, and the confirmed operator can prevent the vehicle from moving, or the vehicle from being moved, or another vehicle from moving onto a co-located section of a route with the vehicle (Para. [0056] and [0128]) (Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 23: Tamaribuchi further discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the equipment is an electricity providing device disposed on a vehicle, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle to prevent or block movement of that vehicle (“Power supply isolation”) (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 24: Tamaribuchi further discloses the system of claim 23, wherein the vehicle is part of a vehicle group, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle group of which the vehicle is a part, to prevent or block movement of that vehicle group inclusive of the vehicle (“Track closure required”) (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 25: Tamaribuchi further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine that a candidate operator (maintenance worker at terminal 200) is a confirmed operator (Para. [0120]); and
transfer control of the equipment to the confirmed operator responsive to the determination that the candidate operator is the confirmed operator (Para. [0125-0127]) (see also Para. [0078] and [0122]) (Fig. 2), the confirmed operator being therefor enabled to initiate the equipment to control a vehicle to prevent or block movement of the vehicle (e.g., “Track closure required” or “Power supply isolation”, Para. [0078]) (Fig. 2).
Referring to Claim 26: Tamaribuchi further discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 25, wherein the confirmed operator being therefor enabled to perform one or more of:
switching or securing one or both of an interlock and a crossing guard to prevent or block another vehicle from entering a section of a route (maintenance work area), where the equipment is a wayside unit (Para. [0056] and [0128]) (Fig. 7).;
engaging an emergency stop function to prevent the equipment from moving or from being moved, where the equipment is a vehicle, and the vehicle is or is not part of a vehicle group; or
de-energizing electrical equipment, where the equipment is an electricity providing device (“Power supply isolation”) (Para. [0078]).
Referring to Claim 27: Tamaribuchi further discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the electricity providing device is disposed on a vehicle, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle to prevent or block movement of that vehicle (e.g., “Track closure required” or “Power supply isolation”, Para. [0078]) (Fig. 2).
Referring to Claim 28: Tamaribuchi further discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27, wherein the vehicle is part of a vehicle group, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle group of which the vehicle is a part, to prevent or block movement of that vehicle group inclusive of the vehicle (e.g., “Track closure required”, Para. [0078]) (Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaribuchi in view of Smith et al. (US 8,532,842).
Referring to Claim 14: Tamaribuchi does not specifically teach that the equipment is the vehicle, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle, which is not part of a vehicle group, to prevent or block movement of that vehicle. However, Smith et al. teaches a system and method for remotely controlling rail vehicles, wherein the equipment is the vehicle (100) (Fig. 1), and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle, which is not part of a vehicle group (Col. 10, lines 17-48) (Fig. 12), to prevent or block movement of that vehicle (Col. 4, lines 50-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tamaribuchi to use the system to prevent unwarranted movement of the vehicle, as taught by Smith, in order to ensure the safety of workers and the adherence to movement authorities with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 15: Tamaribuchi does not specifically teach that the equipment is the vehicle, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle group of which the vehicle is a part, to prevent or block movement of that vehicle group inclusive of the vehicle. However, Smith et al. teaches a system and method for remotely controlling rail vehicles, wherein the equipment is the vehicle (100) (Fig. 1), and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle group (vehicles within rail yard) of which the vehicle is a part (Col. 11, lines 55-67) (Fig. 13), to prevent or block movement of that vehicle group inclusive of the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 50-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tamaribuchi to use the system to prevent unwarranted movement of a group of vehicles within the rail yard, as taught by Smith, in order to ensure the safety of workers and the adherence to movement authorities with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaribuchi in view of Stippich (US 2015/0317856 A1).
Referring to Claim 16: Tamaribuchi teaches a method, wherein the equipment is the electricity providing device (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7)
As noted by strikethrough above, Tamaribuchi does not specifically teach the method further comprising facilitating access to an interior of the equipment by the confirmed operator. However, Stippich teaches a remotely operable lockout system, wherein the “lockout system accommodates user interaction with the lockout system such that discrete electrical panels can be locked out by remote but proximate personnel” (Para. [0007]) to ensure equipment is not prematurely connected to an electrical source before servicing activities are complete (Para. [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Tamaribuchi to use the system in coordination with an electrical panel lockout device, as taught by Smith, in order to ensure the safety of workers and prevent premature power connection or unauthorized access thereto with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, 22 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17 and depending claim 18, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in claims 11, 16 and 17. More specifically, Tamaribuchi in view of Stippich fails to teach both “facilitating access to an interior of the equipment by the confirmed operator,” as required by intervening claim 16, and that the “energy providing device is disposed on a vehicle, and the confirmed operator can control the vehicle to prevent or block movement of that vehicle,” as required by claim 17. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Tamaribuchi in view of Stippich, to facilitate access to an interior of an energy providing device, and to further modify in view of Smith to prevent movement of the vehicle that the energy providing device is disposed upon, i.e., one of ordinary skill would not only be providing the lockout mechanism of Stippich to the vehicle of Tamaribuchi, but also providing a PTC type system, as taught by Smith, to prevent movement of the vehicle, and it is unclear how the vehicle, lockout mechanism and PTC system would be effectively combined to meet the claims without improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, Tamaribuchi fails to teach that “the controller is further configured to open a secure communication channel between the equipment and the confirmed operator, wherein the secure communication channel permits the confirmed operator to control movement of one or more vehicles or groups of vehicles associated with a vehicle network.” Modifying the prior art to meet this limitation would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 29, Tamaribuchi fails to teach that “facilitating access to the interior of the equipment further comprises one or more of: de-energizing electrical components within the equipment; testing for residual power in one or more energizable circuits within the equipment; or physically disconnecting one or more switches associated with the equipment.” Modifying the prior art to meet this limitation would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Tamaribuchi fails to disclose “transferring control of the equipment to the confirmed operator” because the paragraphs cited in the rejection (Para. [0125]-[0127]) fail to recite a transfer of power from the central control device 100 to the terminal device 200, and instead relate to sending and displaying an approval of a maintenance worker’s PIN lock request. Further, Tamaribuchi’s notification at terminal device 200 that the request has been approved is categorically different from a transfer of operational authority over equipment. Examiner responds that the cited portion of Tamaribuchi is intended to map steps S127, S131 and S141 (see Fig. 7) with the operator at terminal device 200 receiving confirmation that the input requirements from input unit 220 have been received and accepted at central control device 100, in order for the operator at terminal device 200 to select “the safety measure required for the maintenance work (a manipulation for touching the item shown in the area A121 of FIG. 2) described in FIG. 2.” (Para. [0122]). I.e., the operator/worker at terminal 200 is receiving confirmation that central control device 100 is allowing said operator/worker to select the necessary safety measures displayed in area A121 in display unit 210 (Fig. 2) and have those safety measures executed (see Para. [0078] and [0122]). The ability of the operator at terminal 200 to select safety measures to be executed by the system may be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted as “transferring control of equipment to the confirmed operator” because the selections of the operator are being executed by system equipment. Examiner acknowledges that total operational authority is not being transferred, but some level of control is transferred from central control device 100 to terminal device 200. Further, Applicant is making arguments more specific than what is recited in claim 11 because the claim only requires “transferring control of equipment to the confirmed operator” and does not use the phrase “operational authority”.
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 ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights