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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-21 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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 and 19-21 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).
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 and 18 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 Smith and 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.
Conclusion
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