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 Amendments
Submission dated 12/18/2025 was denied an entry because a claim amendment therein was non-compliant.
Submission dated 01/14/2026 amends claims 1-5. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Submission dated 01/14/2026 does not appear to contain any argument. Instead, the submission dated 12/18/2025 appears to contain arguments that correspond to the amendment in the submission dated 01/14/2026. As such, the arguments in the submission dated 12/18/2025 have been considered.
The arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the arguments merely allege patentability. In other words, the applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended recites:
“wherein the single board computer determines the oscillation of the individual lights in the array of lights;
wherein the single board computer determines the shutter speed of the individual cameras”.
The applicant does not indicate in the submission where in the specification support for the above amendment may be found, and the examiner cannot find any disclosure in the specification that may be reasonably interpreted to provide support for the above amendment. There are simply no discussions about determining an oscillation of a light or a shutter speed of a camera, let alone any mentioning of keywords, such as “oscillation” and “shutter speed”, or even synonyms, such as “shaking” and “vibration/vibrating”. In view of absence of support for the above amendment in the specification, the examiner reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for their dependencies to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the speed on the train" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a speed of the train.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the oscillation" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an oscillation.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the individual lights" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “individual lights.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the array of lights" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an array of lights.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shutter speed " in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a shutter speed.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the individual cameras" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “individual cameras.”
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependencies to claim 1.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN patent application publication no. 114708179 A to Guo et al. (hereinafter Guo) in view of Us patent application publication no. 2022/0377251 to Grata et al. (hereinafter Grata) and Us patent application publication no. 2013/0033707 to Yamada et al. (hereinafter Yamada).
For claim 1, Guo as applied teaches a device to capture high resolution images of the wheel tread of a moving train which is comprised of:
an array of cameras, wherein the array of cameras is comprised of a plurality of cameras (see, e.g., FIG. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of cameras in the array of cameras are positioned on the ground at a predetermined location (see, e.g., lines 7-20 in page 4 and FIG. 2, which teach employing multiple acquisition modules, each including a line array camera and being positioned on the ground at a safe distance from the rails),
wherein each of the plurality of cameras in the array of cameras are positioned at an angle relative to the wheel tread (see, e.g., lines 7-20 in page 4 and FIG. 2, which teach that the acquisition module including the cameras that keep about a 5 degree angle with the rail),
wherein each camera in the array of cameras capture a specified part of the wheel tread (see, e.g., lines 7-20 in page 4 and FIGS. 2, 5 and 6, which teach that the acquisition module has fixed imaging characteristics and each module is equally spaced part; FIGS. 5 and 6 show specified parts of the wheel tread being corrected and spliced),
wherein the array of cameras will capture the full three hundred and sixty degree image of the wheel tread (see, e.g., lines 37-49 in page 6 and FIG. 6, which teach obtaining a complete wheel tread image from the images from the acquisition modules),
an array of lights (see, e.g., lines 14-16 in page 4 and FIG. 2, which teach that each acquisition module includes a light),
wherein each of the plurality of individual lights are positioned at an angle relative to the wheel tread (see, e.g., lines 7-20 in page 4 and FIG. 2, which teach that the acquisition module including the camera keeps about 5 degree angle with the rail),
wherein the plurality of individual lights is positioned proximate to each individual light in the array of cameras (see, e.g., lines 7-20 in page 4 and FIG. 2, which teach that the acquisition modules are proximate to one another at about 1000mm apart and that both the camera and the light are positioned within each acquisition module),
composition software (see, e.g., lines 22-25 in page 4, lines 23-35 on page 5 and lines 3-15 in page 6, which teach that the images are processed by the server),
wherein the composition software reforms individual images of each of the images that are captured by the cameras (see, e.g., lines 21-46 in page 5 and lines 1-35 in page 6 and FIGS. 4-5, which teach correcting each captured image),
wherein the images are displayed in a linear format (see, e.g., lines 37-49 in page 6 and FIG. 6, which teach that the complete image is obtained by a linear fusion method, e.g., by splicing adjacent tread images).
While Guo as applied does not explicitly teach, Grata in the analogous art teaches:
a trigger exchange module (see, e.g., pars. 16 of Grata, which teach a linear speed detection device);
wherein the trigger exchange module calculates the speed of the train (see, e.g., pars. 16 of Grata, which teach detecting the speed of a moving train);
a single board computer (see, e.g., pars. 16 and 47-48 of Grata, which teach using the software for the linear speed detection device);
wherein the single board computer communicates with the trigger exchange module (see, e.g., pars. 47-48 of Grata, which teach that the linear speed detection device is communicatively connected with the software);
wherein the single board computer determines the shutter speed of the individual cameras (see, e.g., pars. 16 and 47-48 of Grata, which teach determining the shutter speed of cameras using the software);
wherein the array of lights is comprised of a plurality of individual lights and wherein the plurality of individual lights is positioned proximate to each individual light in the array of cameras (see, e.g., pars. 39-40 and 47-48 and FIGS. 1-4 of Grata, which teach having multiple cameras, each of which includes a camera and multiple lights around the camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to determine the train and shutter speed as taught by Grata because doing so would allow determine the optical shutter speed for taking high resolution images (see, e.g., pars. 38 and 48 of Grata).
While Guo in view of Grata does not explicitly teach, Yamada in the analogous art teaches that the single board computer determines the oscillation of the individual lights in the array of lights (see, e.g., pars. 16-17 and 105-111 and FIGS. 7 and 8 of Yamada, which teach determining a vibration of the light);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to determine the vibration as taught by Yamada because doing so would allow measuring the polarization state of the light (see, e.g., pars. 109-111 of Yamada).
For claim 2, Guo in view of Grata and Yamada teaches that the cameras are area scan cameras (see, e.g., lines 47-54 in page 1 and lines 35-40 in page 3 of Guo, which teach using multi-line scan cameras).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Grata and Yamada and further in view of Us patent application publication no. 2020/0408682 to Mian et al. (hereinafter Mian).
For claim 3, while Guo as applied does not explicitly teach, Mian in the analogous art teaches that the lights in the array of lights are light-emitting diode lights (see, e.g., par. 53 of Mian, which teaches using one or more LEDs for light source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to use LEDs as taught by Mian because doing so would constitute a simple substitute of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of obtaining illumination (see MPEP 2143(B)).
For claim 4, while Guo as applied teaches positioning its acquisition units on the ground, it does not explicitly teach that the array of lights are positioned between the rails. Mian in the analogous art teach positioning the illumination devices on the ground between the rails (see, e.g., the enclosure 90A in FIGS. 4A and B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to position the light source as taught by Mian because doing so would allow meeting the requirements of the application (see, e.g., pars. 38 and 45 of Mian).
For claim 5, while Guo teaches positioning its acquisition units on the ground, it does not explicitly teach that the array of lights are positioned outside the rails. Mian in the analogous art teach positioning the illumination devices in various locations on the ground with respect to the rails, including the outside the rails (see, e.g., the enclosure 90B in FIGS. 4A, B, 5, 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 modify Guo to position the light source as taught by Mian because doing so would allow meeting the requirements of the application (see, e.g., pars. 38 and 45 of Mian).
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 WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676