DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 5/8/2023 and 1/20/2026 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 11/12/2020.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12, and 14-20 are pending.
Claims 2 and 13 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 5-6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been amended.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
This Non-FINAL Office action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 5/21/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/21/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Noffsinger et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0287972) in view of Stull et al. (United States Patent Publication 2006/0290478).
With respect to Claim 1: While Noffsinger discloses “A system for verifying the integrity of a convoy” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“comprising at least a first vehicle and a second vehicle” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“wherein said system for verifying the integrity of a convoy includes: a first controller arranged to be coupled to said first vehicle” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“a second controller arranged to be coupled to said second vehicle” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“wherein the first controller is arranged to send messages to the second controller” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047-0048 with Figure 1];
“at least one communication network arranged to allow communication between said first controller and said second controller” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“wherein the at least one first controller or second controller is (i) arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which it is are respectively installed by means of a software coding implemented by means of a process of sequential recognition of nodes of said at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and (ii) arranged to determine that the integrity of the convoy is compromised” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
Noffsinger does not specifically state that the how the polling for train integrity is being carried out.
Stull, which is also train control system the uses polling to determine train integrity teaches “comprising at least a first vehicle and a second vehicle” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1];
“wherein said system for verifying the integrity of a convoy includes: a first controller arranged to be coupled to said first vehicle” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1];
“a second controller arranged to be coupled to said second vehicle” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1];
“wherein the first controller is arranged to send interrogation messages to the second controller, and the second controller is arranged to transmit a response message to the first controller in response to receiving the interrogation message” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1];
“at least one communication network arranged to allow communication between said first controller and said second controller” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1];
“wherein the at least one first controller or second controller is (ii) arranged to determine that the integrity of the convoy is compromised” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1];
“based on at least one of: the interrogation message not being received within a waiting interval, the interrogation message differing from an expected interrogation message, the response message not being received within a predetermined time interval, or the received response message differing from an expected response message” [Stull, ¶ 0019-0020, 0032, 0034, with Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stull into the invention of Noffsinger to not only include using multiple controllers on rail vehicles for vehicle control functions such as integrity checking by polling as Noffsinger discloses but to also use polling with status messages with responses and timed out responses to determine train integrity as taught by Stull with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Stull into Noffsinger to create a more robust system that ensures safe operations of the vehicles [Stull, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using vehicle controllers with adhere to known and requires vehicles safety levels and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 2, wherein, when said first controller determines to be installed on a leading vehicle of said convoy” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and said second l controller determines to be installed on a tail vehicle of said convoy” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“the first controller is arranged to send an interrogation message on the at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“the second controller is arranged to receive the interrogation message from the at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and retransmit a response message on the at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 4: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 2, wherein, when said first controller determines to be installed on a tail vehicle of said convoy” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and said second controller determines to be installed on a leading vehicle of said convoy” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“the first controller is arranged to send an interrogation message on the at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“the second controller is arranged to receive the interrogation message from the at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and retransmit a response message on the at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 7: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 3, wherein said convoy further comprises at least a third vehicle” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“wherein said system for verifying the integrity of a convoy includes at least a third controller arranged to be coupled to said third vehicle” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 8: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 7, wherein said third controller is arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which it is installed” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 9: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 8, wherein, when the third controller determines to be installed on an intermediate vehicle positioned in the convoy between said leading vehicle and said tail vehicle” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“the third controller is arranged to receive the interrogation message sent by the first controller through said at least one communication network and forward said interrogation message to the second controller through said at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and the third controller is arranged to receive the response message sent by the second controller through said at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“and forward said response message to the first controller through said at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 15: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 7, wherein said third controller is arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which it is respectively installed by means of a software coding implemented by means of a process of sequential recognition of nodes of said at least one communication network” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 18: Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 1, wherein the communication network are two or more and are arranged to be connected to each other by means of a communication unit” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Noffsinger et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0287972), in view of Stull et al. (United States Patent Publication 2006/0290478), and in further view of Green et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/017077).
With respect to Claims 10-11: While Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 1, wherein said first controller and said second controller are each made” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 7, wherein said third controller is made” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
Noffsinger does not specifically state that the controllers are associated with a SIL level.
Green, which is also train control system teaches “
“The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 1, wherein said first controller and said second controller are each made according to a safety integrity level greater than a predetermined minimum safety integrity level” [Green, ¶ 0081, 0089-0090, and 0106];
“The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 7, wherein said controller is made according to a safety integrity level greater than a predetermined minimum safety integrity level” [Green, ¶ 0081, 0089-0090, and 0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Green into the invention of Noffsinger to not only include using multiple controllers on rail vehicles for vehicle control functions such as integrity checking as Noffsinger discloses but to also have the controllers associated with a SIL level as taught by Green with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Green into Noffsinger to create a more robust system that ensures safe operations of the vehicles [Green, ¶ 0018] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using vehicle controllers with adhere to known and requires vehicles safety levels and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Noffsinger et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0287972), in view of Stull et al. (United States Patent Publication 2006/0290478), in further view of Tione (United States Patent Publication 2020/0031330).
With respect to Claim 16: While Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 1, wherein the at least one communication network is arranged to allow communication according to a protocol” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
Noffsinger does not state what protocols the communication is being used.
Tione, which is also control system for trains teaches “wherein the at least one communication network is arranged to allow communication according to a predetermined safety protocol” [Tione, ¶ 0067].
“wherein said predetermined safety protocol is a black channel protocol” [Tione, ¶ 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tione into the invention of Noffsinger to not only include using multiple controllers on rail vehicles for vehicle control functions such as integrity checking as Noffsinger discloses but to also have the controllers associated with a known communication protocol as taught by Tione with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Tione into Noffsinger to create a more robust system that complies with current guidelines of railway applications [Tione, ¶ 0067], thus following known safety standards. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using vehicle controllers with adhere to known and requires vehicles safety levels and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 12, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Noffsinger et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0287972), in view of Stull et al. (United States Patent Publication 2006/0290478), in further view of LeFebvre (United States Patent Publication 2016/0272228).
With respect to Claim 12: While Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 2, wherein said first controller and said second controller are arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which they are respectively installed” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1];
“The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 7, wherein said third controller is arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which it is respectively installed” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
Noffsinger does not state that the car location can be determined by optical means.
LeFebvre, which is also a train the conducts train integrity teaches “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 2, wherein said first controller and said second controller are arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which they are respectively installed by means of a physical or hardware coding implemented by optical technology means” [LeFebvre, ¶ 0017 and 0053];
“The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy according to claim 7, wherein said third controller is arranged to determine the vehicle of the convoy on which it is respectively installed by means of a physical or hardware coding implemented by optical technology means” [LeFebvre, ¶ 0017 and 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LeFebvre into the invention of Noffsinger to not only include using multiple controllers on rail vehicles for vehicle control functions such as integrity checking and determine their location as Noffsinger discloses but to also RFID tags to determine car locations, orientation, and consist as taught by LeFebvre with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art LeFebvre into Noffsinger to create a more robust that can determine and validate consist orientation, location, and consist make up thus improving control [LeFebvre, ¶ 0017]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using vehicle controllers with adhere to known and requires vehicles safety levels and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 19: While Noffsinger discloses “The system for verifying the integrity of a convoy for first, second, and third controllers” [Noffsinger, ¶ 0032-0033, 0045, 0047 with Figure 1].
Noffsinger does not specifically state that the controllers can be incorporated in other systems.
LeFebvre, which is also a train the conducts train integrity teaches “said first controller is included in a braking control unit or braking control module, or said second controller is included in a braking control unit or braking control module, or said first controller and said second controller are each included in respective braking control units or braking control modules” [LeFebvre, ¶ 0030].
With respect to Claim 20: Noffsinger discloses “said controller is included in a braking control unit or braking control module” [LeFebvre, ¶ 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LeFebvre into the invention of Noffsinger to not only include using multiple controllers on rail vehicles for vehicle control functions such as integrity checking and determine their location as Noffsinger discloses but to incorporate a network of control in the braking system as taught by LeFebvre with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art LeFebvre into Noffsinger to create a more robust that can use already used wired systems thus saving money and time for installation. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using vehicle controllers with adhere to known and requires vehicles safety levels and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights