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 .
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, 6-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonell (EP 1902923) in view of Sloman (WO 02/060738).
Regarding to claims 1, 14:
Antonell teaches a method for monitoring a railway track, the method comprising:
detecting a first monitoring signal by a distributed acoustic sensor at an initial position while a rail vehicle passes the initial position, wherein the distributed acoustic sensor is arranged along the track; detecting a second monitoring signal by the distributed acoustic sensor at at least one predefined position along the track while a rail vehicle passes the predefined position (FIG. 1 shows the distributed sensors 4-5 arranged along the track 2. The sensor 4 is at the entry of a block section (initial position) and the sensor 5 is at the exit of the block section (predefined position) (paragraph [0007]), wherein the signals associating with the sensors 4-5 read on the claimed first and second monitoring signals); and
comparing the first monitoring signal and the second monitoring signal with each other, wherein:
the first monitoring signal comprises features that each relate to one axle of the rail vehicle passing the initial position and the second monitoring signal comprises features that each relate to one axle of the rail vehicle passing the predefined position (paragraph 0050]: Each sensor (4, 5) associates with a counter that is activated when the passage of the axle is detected to count the number of axles passing the sensor. The number in the counters then are compared to detect the state of occupation of the block section); and
comparing the first monitoring signal and the second monitoring signal with each other comprises counting the features relating to axles of the respective passing rail vehicle for the first monitoring signal and the second monitoring signal (paragraph 0007]: The axle-count equipment compares the number of axles measured at entry to section with the one measured at exit),
wherein from the comparison of the first monitoring signal and the second monitoring signal, it is determined if the passing rail vehicle has a same number of axles at the predefined position as at the initial position (paragraph [0007]: The block section is free if the axles counted at entry to the section are equal in number to the axles counted at the exit from the section).
Antonell however does not teach wherein the predefined position is a position along the railway track where an amplitude of a monitoring signal is increased in comparison to other regions of the railway track.
Sloman discloses a method for detecting damage in a railway track by detecting the sound (a monitoring signal) by the railway track as a result of a vehicle running on the track (Abstract), wherein the change in the sound amplitude, such as a significant increase or a spike in the amplitude, indicates abnormalities/damage in the railway track (page 5, 5th paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Antonell’s method to include pre-inspecting the railway track to obtain a change of a monitoring signal, such as the increase in the sound from the railway track, indicating an abnormal/damaged section of the railway track (as disclosed by Sloman (Abstract)) as a predefined position needed a further inspection to ensure the quality of the railway track.
Antonell also discloses the following claims:
Regarding to claims 6-7: wherein the distributed acoustic sensor comprises an optical fiber arranged along the track and the monitoring signals are backscattered signals of an input signal which is provided to the optical fiber, wherein the position of a rail vehicle moving on the track is provided (paragraph [0020]: The system uses an optical fiber 3 comprising at least two sensors (4-5) arranged along the rail 2, wherein the signals associate with the sensors 4-5 indicate the components of light back-reflected by the sensors 4-5 to acquire the information on the direction of travel and position of the railway vehicles (Abstract)).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonell (EP 1902923) in view of Sloman (WO 02/060738) and further in view of Jian et al. (WO 2014/032390).
Antonell, as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the method is carried out for a plurality of predefined positions.
Jian et al. discloses a railway track monitoring system comprising a plurality of sensors for monitoring the railway track at a plurality of positions (FIG. 1: The sensors 5 arranged along the railway 8 for monitoring the railway at a plurality of positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Antonell’s method, as modified, to arrange a plurality of sensors at a plurality of positions along the railway to monitor the railway to improve the traveling safety as taught by Jian et al. (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853