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 28 August 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 3, line 9, “a processor couple with” should read –a processor coupled with--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the warning system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-13 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the warning system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the warning system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the presence" in lines 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barragan (US 20160362122 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Barragan discloses a railroad crossing warning system comprising:
an obstruction detection system (100) (Fig. 2A) establishing a surveillance zone (the crossing zone where laser 23 is located) at a railroad crossing (1) configured to detect the presence of an obstruction (para. [0019]) on a railroad track (2); and
a communication system (35) (Fig. 4) configured to transmit a warning (para. [0037]) to a railroad operator when an obstruction is detected (para. [0037]) within the surveillance zone (the crossing zone where laser 23 is located).
In regards to claim 11, Barragan discloses the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 1, further including a control system (30) (Fig. 2A) configured to monitor operational status (para. [0020], lines 8-10) of the warning system (100).
In regards to claim 20, Barragan discloses a method for improving railroad crossing safety comprising:
establishing a surveillance zone (the crossing zone where laser 23 is located) including at least a portion of a railroad crossing (1) including:
transmitting one or more light beams (21) (Fig. 2A) into at least a portion of the surveillance zone (as seen in Fig. 2A);
receiving (para. [0025], lines 1-4) the one or more light beams (23); and
determining the presence of an obstruction (para. [0019]) within the surveillance zone (as seen in Fig. 4) based upon, at least in part, the received (para. [0025], lines 1-4) one or more light beams (23); and
communicating (para. [0037]) the presence of the obstruction (para. [0019]) within the surveillance zone (as seen in Fig. 4) to one or more of a train (para. [0037]) heading toward the railroad crossing (1) and a rail operations center (30) responsible for the railroad crossing (1).
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Worthey (US 20170274917 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 1, wherein the obstruction detection system (100) (Fig. 2A) is configured to detect the presence of an obstruction (para. [0019]) within the surveillance zone (as seen in Fig. 4)
Barragan does not teach a threshold period of time.
Worthey teaches a threshold period of time (para. [0015], lines 5-9).
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include a threshold period of time as taught by Worthey with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing false alarms (see Worthey, para. [0015], lines 5-11).
In regards to claim 3, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 1, wherein the obstruction detection system (100) (Fig. 1) includes:
one or more of :
at least one light emitting source (21) (Fig. 2A) configured to transmit an optical signal (23); and
at least one non-light emitting source configured to transmit one or more of a radar signal (para. [0033]) and a combination of an optical signal (23) and a radar signal (para. [0033])
at least one optical receiving sensor (22) configured to receive at least one of the optical signal (para. [0025], lines 1-4), the radar signal (para. [0033]), and the combination of an optical signal and a radar signal;
a processor (31) (Fig. 3) couple with (para. [0031], lines 1-3) the at least one optical receiving sensor (22) configured to determine that the optical receiving sensor (22) has not received (para. [0038], lines 7-10) the optical signal (23) from the light emitting source (21)
Barragan does not teach a threshold period of time.
Worthey teaches a threshold period of time (para. [0015], lines 5-9).
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include a threshold period of time as taught by Worthey with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing false alarms (see Worthey, para. [0015], lines 5-11).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Barragan as modified by Worthey above teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one light emitting source (21) (Barragan, Fig. 2A) includes one or more of an LED and a laser emitter (Barragan, para. [0020], lines 7-8).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Worthey (US 20170274917 A1) and Ballinger (US 20100231414 A1).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Barragan as modified by Worthey above teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one optical receiving sensor (22) (Barragan, Fig. 2A) includes one or more of a
Barragan does not explicitly teach a photodiode, a phototransistor, or a photovoltaic cell.
Ballinger teaches a photodiode (para. [0016], lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a photodiode as taught by Ballinger with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing frequency at which the system operates due to the use of a photodiode, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Goose (WO 2019147306 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 1, wherein the obstruction detection system (100) (Fig. 2A) includes
Barragan does not teach one or more LIDAR systems.
Goose teaches one or more LIDAR systems (para. [0032], lines 1-2).
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include a LIDAR system as taught by Goose with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the reliability of object detection (see Goose, para. [0032], line 8).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Mian (US 20140339374 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 1, further including
Barragan does not teach an image capture system configured to capture an image of a detected obstruction.
Mian teaches an image capture system (20) (Fig. 1) configured to capture an image (para. [0012], lines 8-10) of a detected obstruction (para. [0007], lines 5-8).
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include an image capture system as taught by Mian with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the system to operate through various environmental complications (see Mian, para. [0008]).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Barragan as modified by Mian above teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 7, wherein the image capture system (20) (Mian, Fig. 1) includes one or more of a still-image capture system (Mian, para. [0012], lines 8-10) and a video capture system (para. [0040], lines 5-7).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Barragan as modified by Mian above teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 7, wherein the communication system (35) (Barragan, Fig. 4) is further configured to transmit (para. [0046], lines 1-3) the image of the detected obstruction (para. [0007], lines 5-8).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Barragan as modified by Mian above teaches railroad crossing warning system according to claim 7, wherein the image capture system (20) (Mian, Fig. 1) is configured to store (para. [0031], lines 23-26) the image of the detected obstruction (para. [0007], lines 5-8).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Knaak (US 5787369 A).
In regards to claim 12, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 11, wherein the control system (30) (Fig. 2A) is configured to
Barragan does not teach remotely resetting the warning system.
Knaak teaches remotely (col. 4, lines 9-18) resetting (col. 6, lines 39-42) the warning system.
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include remotely resetting the warning system as taught by Knaak with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing manual labor (see Knaak, col. 4, lines 15-18).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Gastaminza (ES 2835106 A1).
In regards to claim 13, The railroad crossing warning system according to claim 11, wherein the control system (30) (Barragan, Fig. 2A) is configured to
Barragan does not teach inhibiting the transmission of the warning when a train is proximate the surveillance zone.
Gastaminza teaches inhibiting the transmission of the warning (see machine translation, para. [0071], lines 2-3) when a train is proximate the surveillance zone (para. [0071], lines 1-2).
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include inhibiting the transmission of the warning as taught by Gastaminza with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing costs (see Gastaminza, para. [0071], lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 1, further comprising a power
While Barragan does not explicitly teach a power backup system powering the warning system in the event of an outage of a primary electrical supply, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the various power supply methods as taught by Barragan (para. [0032]) as backup power supplies in the event of an outage of a primary electrical supply with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine equivalents which are known to be useful for the same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 2144.06(I).
In regards to claim 15, Barragan teaches a railroad crossing warning system comprising:
a
one or more optical receivers (22) configured receive (para. [0025], lines 1-4) the respective light beams (23);
a control system (30) configured to determine an obstruction (para. [0019]) in the railroad crossing (1) based upon, at least in part, a change (as seen in Fig. 4) in received light beams (23); and
a communication system (35) configured to transmit an alert (para. [0037]) regarding the determined obstruction (para. [0019]).
While Barragan does not explicitly teach a plurality light emitting sources and a plurality of portions of a railroad crossing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of light emitting sources and portions of a railroad crossing with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience and monitored area of the system, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
In regards to claim 16, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 15, wherein the plurality of light emitting sources (23) (Fig. 2A) include
While Barragan does not explicitly teach the plurality light emitting sources including a plurality of light emitting sources emitting respective light beams, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of light emitting sources with a plurality of light emitting sources emitting respective light beams with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience and monitored area of the system, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
In regards to claim 17, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 15, wherein the communication system (35) (Fig. 4) is configured to transmit the alert (para. [0037]) via one or more of a landline transmission, a cellular transmission, a satellite transmission, and a radio transmission (para. [0034]).
In regards to claim 19, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 15, further comprising a battery (para. [0032])
While Barragan does not explicitly teach a battery backup providing electrical power in the event of an outage of a primary electrical supply, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the various power supply methods as taught by Barragan (para. [0032]) including a battery as backup power supplies in the event of an outage of a primary electrical supply with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine equivalents which are known to be useful for the same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 2144.06(I).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barragan (US 20160362122 A1) in view of Mian (US 20140339374 A1).
In regards to claim 18, Barragan teaches the railroad crossing warning system according to claim 15, further comprising
Barragan does not teach an image capture system configured to capture one or more of a digital picture and a video clip of at least a portion of the railroad crossing in response to the determined obstruction, and wherein the alert includes at least a portion of one or more of the digital picture and the video clip.
Mian teaches an image capture system (20) (Fig. 1) configured to capture one or more of a digital picture (para. [0012], lines 8-10) and a video clip (para. [0040], lines 5-7) of at least a portion of the railroad crossing in response to the determined obstruction (para. [0007], lines 5-8), and wherein the alert (para. [0046], lines 1-3) includes at least a portion of one or more of the digital picture (para. [0007], lines 5-8) and the video clip.
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 railroad crossing warning system of Barragan to include an image capture system as taught by Mian with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the system to operate through various environmental complications (see Mian, para. [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woycik (US 20230100640 A1) discloses a system and method for determining passage status of a train at a railroad crossing.
Lucas (US 20210107540 A1) discloses a crossing obstruction detection system.
Tao (WO 2021027075 A1) discloses a level crossing detection device and method based on infrared lasers.
McGavock (US 20190382040 A1) discloses an automated warning time inspection at railroad grade crossings.
Hilleary (US 20160200334 A1) discloses a video analytic sensor system and methods for detecting a railroad crossing gate position and occupancy.
Steffen (US 20140367526 A1) discloses a system and method for controlling warnings at vehicle crossings.
Carlson (US 20130256466 A1) discloses a rail crossing remote diagnostic system.
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