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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 July 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 20220063689 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Kumar discloses a method for autonomously detecting onboard a train a potential hazard condition on a railroad track, the method comprising:
obtaining a position of the train on the track (para. [0263], lines 1-4);
accessing baseline navigational data (para. [0191]) for each of a plurality of regions of track in advance of the position of the train (para. [0191]), the baseline navigational data for each of the plurality of regions (para. [0191]) including coordinates defining the region (para. [0203], lines 16-22) and at least one historical pixel calculus value (para. [0265], lines 9-18) calculated based on pixel values of historical image data (para. [0265], lines 9-18) corresponding to the region, the historical pixel calculus values in the baseline navigational data (para. [0191]) having been calculated prior to a current trip of the train (para. [0265], lines 9-18);
accessing a current image (para. [0108], lines 10-19) of the plurality of regions of track in advance of the position of the train;
justifying the current image (para. [0195], lines 9-19);
calculating at least one current pixel calculus value (para. [0195]) for each of the plurality of regions based on pixel values of the justified current image (para. [0195], lines 9-19) corresponding to the region;
performing, for each of the plurality of regions (para. [0204], lines 1-6), a comparison of a tolerance value (para. [0204], lines 10-16) to a difference between the at least one current pixel calculus value (para. [0195]) and the at least one historical pixel calculus value (para. [0265], lines 9-18) for the region.
determining a potential hazard condition (para. [0204], lines 10-16) based on at least one of the comparisons.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20220063689 A1) in view of Li (CN 107169401 A).
In regards to claim 2, Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the historical pixel calculus values (para. [0265], lines 9-18) are
Kumar does not teach a weighted summation of pixel values.
Li teaches performing a weighted summation of pixel values (see machine translation, para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to include a weighted summation as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving precision (see Li, para. [0044]).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising the step of tracking movement of an object (Kumar, para. [0106], lines 1-3) corresponding to a potential hazard condition (Kumar, para. [0204], lines 10-16).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the further comprising the steps of:
determining that the train is in a multi-track location (Kumar, para. [0182], lines 1-10);
receiving an indication that an other rail vehicle is present on a nearby track (Kumar, para. [0298], lines 28-31); and
reducing (Kumar, para. [0334], lines 1-4) the number of the plurality of regions of track in advance of the position of the train for which baseline navigation data (para. [0191]) is accessed to compensate for a reduction in visibility resulting from the presence of the other rail vehicle (Kumar, para. [0334], lines 1-4) on the nearby track.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the current image is obtained from a sensor mounted on the train (Kumar, para. [0245]).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the current image is obtained from a sensor that is not mounted on the train (Kumar, para. [0243]), the sensor being selected from the group consisting of a sensor mounted on a drone (Kumar, para. [0243]) and a sensor mounted in a fixed location on a track wayside (para. [0016]).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the sensor is an image collection device configured to image light in the visible spectrum (Kumar, para. [0106]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20220063689 A1) in view of Li (CN 107169401 A) and Morgart (US 20210291881 A1).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising the step of: transferring the justified image data (Kumar, para. [0195], lines 9-19) for any region corresponding to a detected hazard (Kumar, para. [0204], lines 10-16) to
Kumar does not teach a classification process for classifying an object.
Morgart teaches a classification process for classifying an object (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to include a classification process as taught by Morgart with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing further information to the operator (see Morgart, para. [0026]).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li and Morgart above teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the classification process is optimized to classify human beings, highway vehicles, animals, railcars, locomotives, trees, poles, rock slides, washouts, and misaligned track (see, Morgart, [0026]).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20220063689 A1) in view of Li (CN 107169401 A) and Fischer (US 10144441 B2).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: accessing, in the baseline navigation data (Kumar, para. [0191]),
Kumar does not teach a baseline unobstructed distance representing a distance to a potential obstruction as measured by reflective technology.
Fischer teaches a baseline unobstructed distance (col. 1, lines 52-55) representing a distance to a potential obstruction (col. 1, lines 52-55) as measured by reflective technology (col. 1, lines 46-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the historical and current data gathering methods of Kumar to include an unobstructed distance as measured by reflective technology as taught by Ono with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing more precision in object monitoring (see Fischer, col. 1, lines 55-59).
In regards to claim 20, A method for developing baseline navigation data comprising:
determining that a rail vehicle has traveled a fixed distance along a length of track (para. [0175], lines 1-4);
in response to the determination, capturing an image from a camera (para. [0108], lines 10-19) mounted to a rail vehicle (para. [0245]) and
defining, for each image, a coordinates (para. [0203], lines 16-22) for a plurality of regions of track in advance of the position of the rail vehicle;
calculating, for each region in the image, a pixel calculus value (para. [0195]);
calculating, for at least one justification (para. [0195], lines 9-19) window in the image, a pixel calculus value (para. [0195]);
identifying at least one pixel for at least one rail in the image (para. [0195], lines 1-7);
storing, for each image, a record comprising the pixel calculus value for each of the plurality of regions in the image (para. [0191]), the coordinates of each of the regions in the image (para. [0203], lines 16-22), the pixel calculus value (para. [0195]) for the at least one justification (para. [0195], lines 9-19) window in the image, alignment data comprising coordinates (para. [0203], lines 16-22) for the at least one pixel of the at least one rail (para. [0195], lines 1-7),
Kumar does not teach determining an unobstructed distance ahead of the rail vehicle using a reflective technology sensor; detecting an unobstructed distance in the absence of any hazardous condition using reflective technology at each location corresponding to an image.
Fischer teaches determining an unobstructed distance (col. 1, lines 52-55) ahead of the rail vehicle using a reflective technology sensor (col. 1, lines 46-52); detecting an unobstructed distance (col. 1, lines 52-55) in the absence of any hazardous condition using reflective technology (col. 1, lines 46-52) at each location corresponding to an image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to include an unobstructed distance as measured by reflective technology as taught by Ono with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing more precision in object monitoring (see Fischer, col. 1, lines 55-59).
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20220063689 A1) in view of Li (CN 107169401 A) and Ono (WO 2020080168 A1).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, wherein
Kumar does not teach wherein the track in advance of the position of the train is divided into a plurality of sections, and plurality of regions includes an impact zone and warning zones on each side of the impact zone for each section of track
Ono teaches wherein the track in advance of the position of the train (as seen in Fig. 4) is divided into a plurality of sections (155a-b, 156) (Fig. 4) and plurality of regions includes an impact zone (156) and warning zones (155a-b) on each side of the impact zone (156) for each section of track (as seen in Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to include a plurality of sections as taught by Ono with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing earlier intrusion warning (see machine translation, Ono, para. [0076], lines 8-12).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li and Ono above teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the step of issuing a warning (Kumar, para. [0174], lines 9-14) when a hazardous condition is detected in a warning zone (155a-b) (Ono, Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li and Ono above teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the step of issuing a warning (Kumar, para. [0174], lines 9-14) when a hazardous condition is detected in an impact zone (156) (Ono, Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Kumar as modified by Li and Ono above teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the step of issuing an indication that the train's brakes should be activated (Kumar, para. [0147]) in response to a detection of a hazardous condition (Kumar, para. [0204], lines 10-16) that corresponds to a condition requiring brake activation (Kumar, para. [0136], lines 7-11) in an impact zone (156) (Ono, Fig. 4) at a distance which is substantially equal to or less than a distance in which it is possible to stop the train (Kumar, para. [0147]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-6, and 9 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 claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 3. While the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, Kumar does not teach wherein the baseline navigational data for at least one of the regions further includes definitions for a plurality of grids that divide the region and historical pixel calculus values for each of the plurality of grids based on pixel values of a portion of historical image data corresponding to a respective grid; and wherein calculating the at least one current pixel calculus value for the at least one of the regions comprises calculating current pixel calculus values for each of the plurality of grids based on pixel values of a portion of the justified current image data corresponding to a respective grid.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to meet the claimed limitations as the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the method of Kumar to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 3 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 4. While the combination of Kumar as modified by Li above teaches the method of claim 2, Kumar does not teach accessing, for at least one justification window, a baseline justification value based on a summation of the pixel values of historical image data corresponding to the at least one justification window; calculating, for the at least one justification window, an active view justification value based on a summation of the pixel values of the current image data corresponding to the at least one justification window; applying a justification factor based on a difference between the baseline view justification value and the active view justification value to pixel values in at least portions of the current image corresponding to the plurality of regions.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to meet the claimed limitations as the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the method of Kumar to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 4 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 5-6 are also non-obvious due to dependence upon claim 4, but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 9. While the combination of Kumar as modified by Li and Morgart above teaches the method of claim 7, Kumar does not teach in response to the classification process being unable to classify the potential hazard condition within a predetermined time period or with a predetermined certainty, assigning a highest severity index to the hazardous condition.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kumar to meet the claimed limitations as the modifications needed would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 9 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi (CN 111295321 A) discloses an obstacle detecting device.
Singh (CN 108974044 A) disclose a railway track asset survey system.
Lesher (US 10067897 B1) discloses a system and method for determining the positions of side collision avoidance sensors on a vehicle.
Nidhi (JP 2016058086 A) discloses an optical route examination system and method.
Keshet (US 20050025380 A1) discloses a digital image data processing method for use in digital image devices.
Cooper (US 5786750 A) discloses a pilot vehicle which is useful for monitoring hazardous conditions on railroad tracks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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 Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615