DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-10 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)) and For example, the claims 11-19 fall within category of process and each of claim 21 is directed to a “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
Regarding claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of detect an abnormality.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
a data collection device comprising:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to(:
detect a target data point that is a data point at which a target is observed in acoustic data obtained by observation of the target;
determine an analysis range in the acoustic data based on the target data point;
detect an abnormality in the analysis range; and
output information of the analysis range in which the abnormality is detected.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “detect a target data point [..]; determine an analysis range[..]; detect an abnormality[..]” is mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The first additional element is “detect a target data point that is a data point at which a target is observed in acoustic data obtained by observation of the target ” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of using a generic system with generic components and obtaining data, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “a data collection device comprising: at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions ” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component with generic sensor as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the three “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of “processor, memory”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples, claims 2-4, 5(receive environment information of observation of the target), 6(attribute reception means for receiving receive an attribute of the target;) and 9: to be performed, at least in-part, by use of using a generic system with generic components and obtaining data, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For examples, claims 5(classify the information of the analysis range based on the environment information), 6(classify the information of the analysis range based on the attribute),7-9: represent a combination of mathematical concepts and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For examples, claim 10(the target is a rail joint): generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 11-19 and 21
Claims 11-19 and 21 contain language similar to claims 1-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-19 and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly (US 20150000415).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 21: Kelly teaches a data collection device comprising(1; abstract):
at least one memory storing a set of instructions(computer system : [0043]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to(108: fig.1):
detect a target data point that is a data point at which a target is observed in acoustic data obtained by observation of the target(302: fig.3; [0060], [0063]);
determine an analysis range in the acoustic data based on the target data point(302-303: fig. 3; [0060]);
detect an abnormality in the analysis range(This may involve detecting acoustic events (302, 303) associated with different parts of the train and detecting when the separation between the two events exceeds a threshold amount, train separation event is detected: [abstract]; [0060]); and
output information of the analysis range in which the abnormality is detected([0075]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12: Kelly further teaches to exclude an exclusion range that is shorter than the analysis range (T1) and includes the target data point from the analysis range(T4: fig. 4d; [0070]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: Kelly further teaches to execute the instructions to store information of the analysis range in an abnormality database when the abnormality is detected(computer system : [0043]; fig. 3).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14: Kelly further teaches to classify the information of the analysis range based on a type of the detected abnormality([0075]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15: Kelly further teaches environment information reception means for receiving receive environment information of observation of the target(monitoring of almost the whole length of the train continuously which also allows for changes in durations between events due to train acceleration/deceleration to be readily determined: [0031]) ;and, wherein the classification means classifies classify the information of the analysis range based on the environment information(if he can confirm or deny the train separation. For instance a slight acceleration may be applied to see if the detected excess separation increases: [0075]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: Kelly further teaches attribute reception means for receiving receive an attribute of the target([0063]); and wherein the classification means classifies classify the information of the analysis range based on the attribute(fig. 4 a-d, 5; [0064]-[0075]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: Kelly further teaches to calculate classification reliability calculation means for calculating a classification reliability for each classification into which the information of the analysis range is classified, based on a rate at which an abnormality is detected in the target in which the abnormality is detected(distance / time with separation, an initial tentative alert which initiates some initial precautions whilst the separation is being confirmed : fig. 4c-4d; fig. 5; [0064]-[0075]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18: Kelly further teaches to calculate target reliability calculation means for calculating a target reliability of information of the abnormality of the target based on a rate at which the abnormality is detected in a plurality of measurements on the target at which the abnormality is detected((distance / time with separation, an initial tentative alert which initiates some initial precautions whilst the separation is being confirmed : fig. 4c-4d; fig. 5; [0064]-[0075])).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19: Kelly further teaches to determine the abnormality detection means determines an urgency of an abnormality occurring in the target based on a type of the detected abnormality((distance / time with separation, an initial tentative alert which initiates some initial precautions whilst the separation is being confirmed : fig. 4c-4d; fig. 5; [0064]-[0075])).
Regarding Claim 10: Kelly further teaches the target is a rail joint ([0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Cole (US 20180354534) disclose monitoring of rail networks using fibre optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS).
b) Pioneer (WO2018101430) disclose , the acquisition unit 12 may further acquire information (weather information) indicating the weather when the sound information is generated. For example, the acquisition unit 12 can access the Web server that distributes the weather information via the network interface 112 and acquire the weather information corresponding to the position indicated by the position information in S104. Further, the acquisition unit 12 may estimate the weather at the current position of the vehicle using sensing data obtained from various sensors (such as a raindrop sensor, an illuminance sensor, and an image sensor) mounted on the vehicle. Moreover, the acquisition part 12 may estimate the weather in the present position of a vehicle using the control signal of the vehicle which can be acquired via a CAN communication network. For example, when a control signal for operating the wiper is acquired, the acquisition unit 12 can generate information indicating that the weather is rainy. Then, the output unit 14 may further associate the weather information with the output information and output it to the server device 20 or the storage device 108. In this way, the collection of sound information can be classified based on the weather information, and a more detailed analysis is possible.
c) Pagano et al. (US 20040113625) disclose detecting acoustic responses caused at a discontinuity of the elongated material; determining a walk direction of the test device; determining at least one characteristic of the detected acoustic responses.
d) Spec. et al. (US 2021/0269077) disclose a method and system for automatically transferring sensor data in railway, particularly railway infrastructure. The method can comprise any of the steps of determining relevance-criteria for sensor data; sampling sensor data by at least one sensor; automatically categorizing the sensor data according to the relevance-criteria; sending the sensor data according to their category; and receiving the sensor data at least in one server.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857