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.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22, 29, 30, 32 (two occurrences) and 33, misspell envelope as “envelop”.
Claims 37 and 38 both improperly depend from claim 38. For examination purposes, both claims will be interpreted as depending from claim 36, which provides antecedent basis for non-UWB signals.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Carlson et al. US 10,778,363 (“Carlson ‘363”) in view of Carlson et al. US 2015/0060608 A1 (“Carlson ‘608”). Carlson ‘363 fails to claim the “protective envelope” of independent claim 21, but this aspect of the invention is rendered obvious by Carlson ‘608 which teaches a rail vehicle signal enforcement and separation control, wherein “[s]uch a decentralized approach may allow each vehicle to determine its safe operating envelope using only the necessary local inputs from signals and other vehicles” (Para. [0126]). It would have been obvious for Carlson ‘363 to incorporate the protective envelope of Carlson ‘608 in order to enhance safety using a decentralized approach with a reasonable expectation of success.
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) 21 and 36-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. (US 2015/0060608 A1) (“Carlson ‘608”).
Referring to Claim 21: Carlson ‘608 discloses a train-mounted device (10), configured for use within a train (5) to support a decentralized train control system, the train-mounted device comprising:
one or more antennas (120), configured for communication of wireless signals; and
one or more circuits (150) configured to:
process signals communicated via the one or more antenna (Para. [0065]) (Fig. 5); and
perform one or more functions relating to operations of the train-mounted device within the decentralized train control system (Para. [0068]);
wherein the train-mounted device is configured to, during operation of the train:
communicate with one or more wayside units that come within communication range of the train-mounted unit, wherein the communicating comprises transmission and/or reception of ultra-wideband (UWB) signals (Para. [0051] and [0067]);
process the ultra-wideband (UWB) signals (Para. [0068]); and
determine, based on the processing of the ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, a protective envelope configured for use in controlling operating of the train in conjunction with a train network (Para. [0126]).
Referring to Claim 36: Carlson ‘608 discloses the train-mounted device of claim 21, wherein the train-mounted device (1000) is configured for utilizing or supporting use of non-UWB signals (via 1003, 1005, 1008) for communication of at least some data (Fig. 9) (Para. [0127-0133] and [0136]).
Referring to Claim 37: Carlson ‘608 discloses the train-mounted device of claim 36, wherein the non-UWB signals (via 1008) comprise radio-frequency identification (RFID) signals (Fig. 9) (Para. [0136]).
Referring to Claim 38: Carlson ‘608 discloses the train-mounted device of claim 36, wherein the non-UWB signals (via 1003 and 1005) comprise signals (Fig. 9) (Para. [0127-0133]).
Referring to Claim 39: Carlson ‘608 discloses the train-mounted device of claim 21, wherein the train-mounted device is configured to generate, based on the processing of the ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, control information configured for use in controlling one or more functions of the train in conjunction with operation in the train network (Para. [0038]).
Referring to Claim 40: Carlson ‘608 discloses the train-mounted device of claim 39, wherein the train-mounted device is configured to generate at least part of the control information based on sources other than the processing of the ultra-wideband (UWB) signals (Para. [0038]).
Referring to Claim 41: Carlson ‘608 discloses the train-mounted device of claim 21, wherein the train-mounted device is configured to:
assess based on the processing of the processing of the ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, one or more conditions relating to operation of the train within the train network (Para. [0132]);
when at least one condition meets one or more triggering criteria, determine one or more responsive actions (Para. [0138-0139]); and
perform or cause performing each of the one or more responsive actions (Para. [0141]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-35 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 claims and if all claim objections and double patenting rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22 and depending claims 23-35, the prior art, including Carlson ‘608, fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in claim 22. More specifically, Carlson ‘608 fails to teach that “the train-mounted device is configured to determine the protective envelop based on both of a perceived actual location and a worst-case forward location for the train,” as recited in claim 22. While Carlson ‘608 teaches determining a safe operating envelope using UWB signals (see Carlson ‘608, Para. [0126]), Carlson does not specifically teach that it is based on “a worst-case forward location for the train”. A secondary reference, Newman (US 5,437,422), teaches a railway signalling system, wherein “[o]nce a train's ATP has received from the MBP information defining that train's limit of movement authority it can, knowing the train's current location, the train's worst case guaranteed braking performance and the geography of the route ahead of it up to the LMA, calculate a safe running profile of location versus permitted speed. Should the train at any time exceed this profile then the brakes will be applied to slow the train. An example of a simple running profile is shown in FIG. 11.” (Col. 9, lines 44-53). However, Newman’s “worst case guaranteed braking performance” is different than the claimed “worst-case forward location for the train” because the claimed worst-case forward location “may be determined based on measurement and/or calculations that account for messaging related delays, movement of train, and other possible errors in the system (e.g., measurement errors).” (Para. [0126] of the printed publication (US 2024/0089022 A1) for the instant application). Thus, Newman’s “worst-case guaranteed braking performance” cannot be reasonably interpreted as the claimed “worst-case forward location for the train” because it is directed to braking performance rather than UWB measurement errors. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Carlson ‘608 in this manner that would not require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning. Thus, claims 22-35 are nonobvious.
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