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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/5/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Examiner Comment - 2019 PEG - 35 USC 101
Examiner finds the claims to be directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Assuming, arguendo, even if claims 11-21 recitation “computation” was identified to fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the per 2019 PEG step 2A prong one, i.e. mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity, claim 1 recites: railway network; vehicle travelling on a track; sensor arranged on the vehicle on track; computation unit arranged on the vehicle; sensor computation unit which is an integration into a practical application per step 2A prong one and is therefore patent eligible subject matter, see MPEP 2106.05 a-h, especially improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field - MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - MPEP 2106.05(b) and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - MPEP 2106.05(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-15,17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connell et al EP 2,765,053 (see IDS) in view of Moeller US 2017/0080960 and Miller et al US 2017/0297592.
In Re 11, O’Connell teaches
A computer-implemented method of generating measurement data describing a railway network or a vehicle travelling on a track ([0054] “fleet”) (fig 1) (title abstract),, comprising:
determining measurement values using a first sensor (32 fig 3, [0046],[0057]) arranged on the vehicle, wherein for the first sensor a sensor time value ([0058] time-stamped) is issued for each first measurement value;
determining second measurement values using a second sensor arranged on the vehicle, wherein the second sensor determines measurement values per distance travelled or at measurement locations ([0058] GPS-stamped);
providing, from a computation unit (2,10 figs 1-3) arranged on the vehicle to a sensor computation unit (31 fig 3) in communication with the second sensor;
assigning, by the sensor computation unit, a measurement value of the second sensor ([0041];[0046]-[0048]); and
storing (55 fig 4), in a database (60 fig 4), measurement data of the first and second sensor including the measurement values, the sensor time value, and the time value ([0038],[0055])(at least all figs and paras).
O’Connell does not teach however Moeller teaches a sensor determines measurement values per distance travelled (odometer paras 28-29) and does not issue sensor time values (odometers only measure distance travelled and do not include a time component). Moeller further teaches determining position via dead reckoning using odometer without GPS signal (paras 28-29). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Moeller’s distance travelled odometer sensor to O’Connell’s system in order to rudimentarily calculate position when GPS signal not available using ancient art method of dead reckoning.
O’Connell does not teach however Miller teaches:
time-synchronized (time and or distance synchronization module pars 23-25);
providing from a computation unit (construed as event recorder 10 fig 2) a time value ([0023] associating and encoding a universal time stamp derived from a common time source with each of the various types of data) describing a time t to a sensor computation unit (construed as 13 synchronization module);
assigning by the sensor computation unit (construed as event recorder 10 fig 2) the time value, the time value describing a measurement time([0023]);
Miller further teaches para 23 one or more controllers associated with synchronization module 13 of event recorder system 10 may also be configured for associating and encoding a universal time stamp derived from a common time source with each of the various types of data in order to enable real-time synchronization of all the recorded data when re-creating an event on user interface 25 and by associating a universal time stamp with all of the various types of data received by the event recorder controller, the controller may avoid the need to stitch together the various types of data after the data has been separately recorded and associated with separate time sources that may not reflect exactly the same time. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Miller’s synchronization module to O’Connell’s system to allow real time synchronization to avoid undesirable stitching.
In Re 11-15, 17-21 O’Connell further teaches:
12. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein the time value is generated according to a network protocol ([0043] Ethernet^TM LAN).
13. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 12, wherein the network protocol is one of (Markush) NTP (optional), PTP (optional), and a specified format (paras 43,44,45,48,58 “data exchange protocol”; “protocol”; “stamped”).
14. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein the measurement data includes a unified time format ([0058] time-stamped and GPS-stamped).
15. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein the position value is at least one of (Markush) relative position information (distance run [0101]), absolute position information (optional), and position information established based on applicable standards in the railway network (([0058], [0078], [0099] GPS).
16. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein the measurement pattern includes information on a determination of measurement values per timespan (construed as [0058],[0059] comparison of combined data based on GPS stamp and time stamps).
17. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein: the time value is matched (same point in time [0059]-[0062]) with a reference time value at the time t; and a time difference (“comparing” and or “deviate”) between the time value and the reference time value is minimized by a change in time increments of the time value following the time t made within a matching timespan (same point in time [0062]).
18. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 17, wherein the change in time increments is one of linear and following a mathematical function (paras 47-48 e.g. every 100 ms).
19. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein: a sensor ID ([0047] construed as specific sensors such as brake control lever in the cab or air pressures or voltages) is read from the sensor by the sensor computation unit; and the sensor ID is transmitted to the computation unit ([0048] transmitted).
20. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, further comprising at least one of (Markush):
generating improved measurement values out of first measurement values and second measurement values (windows [0085]), the improved measurement values being determined by one of (Markush):
an average ([0085] average) of the first measurement values and the second measurement values; and
interpolation ([0087] interpolation) of the first measurement values and the second measurement values; and
generating improved measurement data ([0087] correct analysis) out of: first measurement data including first measurement values generated by a first sensor (32) at a time specified by a unified time format, and second measurement data including second measurement values generated by a second sensor (34) at the time specified by the unified time format (time stamp);
wherein the improved measurement data is determined by one of (Markush): an average ([0085]) of the first measurement data and the second measurement data; and interpolation ([0087]) of the first measurement data and the second measurement data.
21. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, further comprising matching the measurement data with reference measurement data, the reference measurement data describing a reference object, and the measurement data being assigned to the reference object while determining a similarity measure ([0062] comparing each engine in a diesel multiple unit to each other at same point of time).
In Re 22, the location synchronized measurement data claim 22 rejected over in re 11 as taught by over O’Connell in view of Moeller and Miller as described above. Further:
the claimed location synchronized measurement data, taught by Miller para 20 as meta data that may be attached includes position information;
further claimed providing a position value describing a position, see Miller para 20;
further claimed assigning the first sensor to the position value, taught by Miller all data from sensors is synchronized together with time and position stamp; and
claimed storing position values, inherent to Miller’s the time and location synchronization module/event recorder/data storage of fig 2, and O’Connell’s database 60 fig 4 as modified by Moeller and Miller.
In Re 23, the time and location synchronized measurement data claim 23 rejected over in re 11 as taught by over O’Connell in view of Moeller and Miller as described above. Further:
the claimed time and location synchronized measurement data, taught by Miller para 20 as meta data that may be attached includes position information and time para 23;
further claimed a single sensor computation unit in communication with first and second sensor, taught by O’Connell’s single DAQ 31 connected to multiple sensors 32;
further claimed assigning by the single sensor computation unit both first sensor and second sensor, taught by O’Connell’s single DAQ 31 connected to multiple sensors 32 as modified by Millers time and location synchonization;
further claimed storing, in a database, measurement data of the first and second sensor including the measurement values, the sensor time value, the time value, and the position values, taught by O’Connell database 60 fig 4 as modified by Moeller and Miller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 8-12, filed 9/5/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-21 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of O’Connell in view of Moeller and Miller as described above.
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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747