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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 19 have been entered into the record. Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 thru 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a positive vehicle control system obtaining information in claims 3 and 17; establish a communication connection with a communication device of a crossing system in claim 12; the crossing system is further configured to determine/obtain in claims 15 and 16; and a crossing system that is configured to receive, and a communication device configured to provide in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The claimed positive vehicle control system is interpreted to be a positive train control system P[0023] in which the structure is well known in the art. The communication device is interpreted to include an antenna and wireless transceiving circuitry that wirelessly communicates signals P[0031], and/or transceiving circuitry, one or more antennas, modems, or the like, that communicate (e.g., broadcast and/or transmit) a notice signal P[0060]. The crossing system is interpreted as the equipment described and represented in P[0046] and Figure 2.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 3 thru 7, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1 in view of Ryan Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0229435 A1 and Rhea Jr. et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0241296 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Nichter teaches the claimed method, flowchart 300 (Figure 3), comprising:
the claimed receiving a wireless signal indicative of one or more of a location, a heading or a moving speed of a first vehicle, “The process begins with the processor 102 determining the train speed and position at step 302. The current speed and position may be determined from information received from the GPS receiver 114.” (P[0021] and Figure 3), “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1), “the central station 190 includes a first transceiver 192, in this case a wireless transceiver, for communicating with the onboard equipment 101” (P[0020] and Figure 2), and “The processor is connected to a GPS receiver 114, from which it receives messages including the location of the train. In some embodiments, the messages may further include a time, a heading, and a speed.” P[0014];
the claimed predicting a time of arrival of the first vehicle at an intersection based on the signal received, “the processor 110 calculates an estimated arrival time for the crossing at the top of the list at step 314. The estimated arrival time (i.e., the estimated time at which the train will arrive at the crossing) is calculated based at least in part on the train speed and the distance between the current train position and the location of the crossing retrieved from the track database 112 (those of skill will recognize that more refined estimates could include a current acceleration of the train).” (P[0023] and Figure 3); and
the claimed activating a barrier or notification at a time of a determined range of times prior to the predicted time of arrival to prevent, warn or block a second vehicle from entering the intersection, “The arrival time threshold is based on two values: a desired constant warning time (which is the desired time period prior to the train's arrival at the crossing that the wayside warning system 150 will activate, typically on the order of 30-40 seconds) plus a buffer time (typically on the order of ten seconds) which will be used by the wayside interface unit to start a timer” P[0023], and “If the arrival time is exactly equal to the arrival time threshold, the timeout time in the activate after expiration message will be equal to the buffer time discussed above. If the arrival time is less than the threshold, the timeout time will necessarily be less than the buffer time and may be zero (signifying that the train has already passed the point at which the warning system 150 should have been activated).” P[0024].
Nichter does not teach the claimed displaying information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system or intersection with crossing system equipment that comprises a physical layout of the crossing system.
Ryan teaches,
the claimed displaying information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system or intersection with crossing system equipment that comprises a physical layout of the crossing system, “FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary display of information within a mobile display of the virtual crossing system. Multiple crossings within a specified area 320a-c are displayed along with their status based on the interaction of the zones of the actors within the area. As indicated, the expected time of arrival at each crossing can be estimated and displayed based on the current route 321 information of the alert receiving device.” (P[0032] and Figure 3A), and “FIGS. 4A-4B illustrate how a display of some of the information available within the virtual crossing system, e.g., in a vehicle display” (P[0036] and Figures 4A and 4B).
The display system of Ryan would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when slowing or stopping the train along the route based on the indicated alarm condition at one of the crossings (similar to when not in communication with the crossing P[0022]). The in vehicle display of the crossing could be included in either or both of a train and a vehicle crossing the tracks. The indication that the crossing arms are down (Figure 4B) would provide the train operator information that the crossing should be clear of vehicular traffic (if the traffic obeys the crossing arms). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter with the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, increase safety of crossings, and reduce the cost of installation and maintenance (Ryan P[0005]).
Nichter and Ryan et al do not teach the claimed displaying of a braking envelope of the first vehicle relative to the intersection. Rhea Jr. et al teach, “controlling braking of the train in the on-board computer by generating one or more braking profiles for the train using Td, T and αmax, which may then be displayed to the driver of the train for controlling the train” P[0008]. The display of the braking profiles would be included for the sections that include an intersection, and would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when slowing or stopping the train along the route. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter and the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan with the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide increased safety (Rhea Jr et al P[0006]).
Regarding claim 3 Nichter teaches the claimed obtaining information about the location, heading or moving speed of the first vehicle from a positive vehicle control system onboard the first vehicle, “A more recent development in train safety has been the use of positive train control, or PTC, systems onboard locomotives. These systems are designed to prevent collisions between trains, to enforce speed restrictions, and to perform other safety-related functions. Although these systems vary widely in their implementation, many of them share common characteristics such as a positioning systems and map databases that allow a locomotive to determine its position relative to a track system and communications system that allow the locomotive to communicate with devices located off of the train.” P[0005].
Regarding claim 4 Nichter teaches the claimed obtaining information about the location, heading or moving speed of the first vehicle comprises referencing an onboard route database, “A more recent development in train safety has been the use of positive train control, or PTC, systems onboard locomotives. These systems are designed to prevent collisions between trains, to enforce speed restrictions, and to perform other safety-related functions. Although these systems vary widely in their implementation, many of them share common characteristics such as a positioning systems and map databases that allow a locomotive to determine its position relative to a track system and communications system that allow the locomotive to communicate with devices located off of the train.” P[0005].
Regarding claim 5 Nichter teaches the claimed receiving the wireless signal occurs at a crossing system that is proximate to the intersection, “An "island" is a term of art used in the railroad industry to refer to an area of track that more or less intersects a roadway” P[0028], “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1), and “The transceiver 154 may be connected to a wayside interface unit 152, which in turn may be connected to control a wayside warning system 150. The wayside interface unit 152 may be realized using a microprocessor, a microcontroller, discrete logic, programmable logic arrays, or by any other means known in the art. The wayside interface unit 152 is responsible for communicating with trains and controlling the wayside warning system 150. The wayside warning system may be any conventional grade crossing warning system including one or more of cross bucks, bells, and lights.” P[0018], and
the claimed attempting to establish a communication between the crossing system and the first vehicle, “If a new crossing is in range at step 304, the processor 110 attempts to establish a communication session with the wayside interface unit 152 at the crossing by transmitting a "session request" message at step 306. Preferably, the session request message is addressed to the specific wayside interface unit 152 identified in step 304 (as will be discussed in further detail below, there may be multiple wayside interface units within the threshold range of the train, and possibly even multiple wayside interface units being controlled by the train at any one time).” (P[0022] and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6 Nichter teaches the claimed for a non-established communication connection the first vehicle responds by slowing or stopping, “If the wayside interface unit 152 fails to establish a communications session by responding to the session request message with an acknowledgement (ACK) message, or the ACK message is not received for some other reason, at step 308, the processor 110 assumes that there is a malfunction at proceeds under malfunction conditions at step 310.” (P[0022] and Figure 3), and “The train may proceed under malfunction conditions in a number of ways. For example, in some embodiments, the processor may ensure that the train comes to a complete stop prior to reaching the crossing, and then allow the train to proceed through the crossing at a low speed. Alternatively, the processor 110 may allow the train to proceed through the crossing at a low speed without coming to a complete stop.” P[0022].
Regarding claim 7 Nichter teaches the claimed communication connection is established, “a communications session is established at step 308” (P[0023] and Figure 3),
the claimed receiving a second wireless signal at the first vehicle from the crossing system that contains information indicative of at least one of health or condition of the crossing system and status of the intersection, “After sending either the maintain session message at step 320 or the activate after expiration message at step 318, the processor 110 determines if the a responsive acknowledgement message is received from the wayside interface unit 152 at step 322. If the acknowledgement message is not received, or an acknowledgement indicating a malfunction or other non-satisfactory status is received, at step 322, the processor 110 ensures that the train proceeds under malfunction conditions at step 310 as described above. If an ACK message is received at step 322, the train's speed and position are updated (e.g., by checking the database and/or querying the GPS receiver 114) at step 324.” (P[0025] and Figure 3), and “the status of the wayside equipment 102 is checked at step 408 and an ACK message including the status is transmitted at step 410” (P[0027] and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 10 Nichter does not teach the claimed displaying information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system/intersection with crossing equipment, and the claimed displayed information comprising at least one of the time of arrival at the crossing system, an aspect of the crossing system, or a status of the crossing system being active or inactive.
Ryan teaches,
the claimed displaying additional information to the operator of the first vehicle relating to the upcoming crossing system/intersection with crossing equipment, “FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary display of information within a mobile display of the virtual crossing system. Multiple crossings within a specified area 320a-c are displayed along with their status based on the interaction of the zones of the actors within the area. As indicated, the expected time of arrival at each crossing can be estimated and displayed based on the current route 321 information of the alert receiving device.” (P[0032] and Figure 3A), and “FIGS. 4A-4B illustrate how a display of some of the information available within the virtual crossing system, e.g., in a vehicle display” (P[0036] and Figures 4A and 4B);
the claimed displayed information comprising at least one of the time of arrival at the crossing system, an aspect of the crossing system, or a status of the crossing system being active or inactive, the display includes the expected arrival of a train (P[0034] and Figure 4B) (claimed time of arrival at the crossing system), the display includes receiving a “Clear Passage” notification 402 because there is no other actor within the distance (or expected to be within that distance) of the alert receiving device and issuing a “Caution” 404 and “Stop Don't Enter” 405 notification when oncoming train's zone and the alert receiving device's zone are interacting to create the notifications (P[0034] and Figure 4B) (claimed status of the crossing system being active or inactive), and Figures 4A and 4B identify the intersection and the status of the arms (up or down) (claimed aspect of the crossing system).
The display system of Ryan would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when slowing or stopping the train along the route based on the indicated alarm condition at one of the crossings (similar to when not in communication with the crossing P[0022]). The in vehicle display of the crossing could be included in either or both of a train and a vehicle crossing the tracks. The indication that the crossing arms are down (Figure 4B) would provide the train operator information that the crossing should be clear of vehicular traffic (if the traffic obeys the crossing arms). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter and the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al with the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, increase safety of crossings, and reduce the cost of installation and maintenance (Ryan P[0005]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1.
Regarding claim 19 Nichter teaches the claimed system, the communication based crossing control system (Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
the claimed controller comprising one or more processors at are disposed onboard a first vehicle, “The onboard equipment 101 is controlled by a processor 110.” (P[0014] and Figures 1, 2), and
the claimed controller determines a location, heading or speed of the first vehicle based on at least in part from a positive train control track database, “A more recent development in train safety has been the use of positive train control, or PTC, systems onboard locomotives. These systems are designed to prevent collisions between trains, to enforce speed restrictions, and to perform other safety-related functions. Although these systems vary widely in their implementation, many of them share common characteristics such as a positioning systems and map databases that allow a locomotive to determine its position relative to a track system and communications system that allow the locomotive to communicate with devices located off of the train.” P[0005];
the claimed crossing system to receive data wirelessly from the controller, “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1), and
the claimed crossing system activates a barrier or notifications at a determined time period to an arrival of the first vehicle at an intersection proximate to the crossing system, “The arrival time threshold is based on two values: a desired constant warning time (which is the desired time period prior to the train's arrival at the crossing that the wayside warning system 150 will activate, typically on the order of 30-40 seconds) plus a buffer time (typically on the order of ten seconds) which will be used by the wayside interface unit to start a timer” P[0023], and “If the arrival time is exactly equal to the arrival time threshold, the timeout time in the activate after expiration message will be equal to the buffer time discussed above. If the arrival time is less than the threshold, the timeout time will necessarily be less than the buffer time and may be zero (signifying that the train has already passed the point at which the warning system 150 should have been activated).” P[0024];
the claimed communication device to provide a communication connection between the controller and the crossing system, “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1); and
the claimed one or both of the controller or crossing device determines the time of arrival of the first vehicle at the intersection based on the location, heading or speed of the first vehicle, “the processor 110 calculates an estimated arrival time for the crossing at the top of the list at step 314. The estimated arrival time (i.e., the estimated time at which the train will arrive at the crossing) is calculated based at least in part on the train speed and the distance between the current train position and the location of the crossing retrieved from the track database 112 (those of skill will recognize that more refined estimates could include a current acceleration of the train).” (P[0023] and Figure 3),
the claimed controller obtains a location of the intersection and responds to a failure to establish communication with the crossing system within a determined distance from the crossing system by slowing or stopping the first vehicle prior to its entry into the intersection, “The processor 110 then determines whether any crossings are within a threshold range at step 304 by comparing the current train position and, optionally, speed, with crossing locations stored in the track database 112 based upon the route (e.g., the direction in which the train is traveling and the path the train will take through upcoming switches) assigned to the train.” (P[0021] and Figure 3), and “If the wayside interface unit 152 fails to establish a communications session by responding to the session request message with an acknowledgement (ACK) message, or the ACK message is not received for some other reason, at step 308, the processor 110 assumes that there is a malfunction at proceeds under malfunction conditions at step 310. The train may proceed under malfunction conditions in a number of ways. For example, in some embodiments, the processor may ensure that the train comes to a complete stop prior to reaching the crossing, and then allow the train to proceed through the crossing at a low speed. Alternatively, the processor 110 may allow the train to proceed through the crossing at a low speed without coming to a complete stop.” (P[0022] and Figure 3); and
the claimed to respond to an establishment of communication with the crossing system with the determined distance from the crossing system, “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1), “If a new crossing is in range at step 304, the processor 110 attempts to establish a communication session with the wayside interface unit 152 at the crossing by transmitting a "session request" message at step 306. Preferably, the session request message is addressed to the specific wayside interface unit 152 identified in step 304 (as will be discussed in further detail below, there may be multiple wayside interface units within the threshold range of the train, and possibly even multiple wayside interface units being controlled by the train at any one time).” (P[0022] and Figure 3)
the claimed receiving a second wireless signal at the first vehicle from the crossing system that contains information indicative of at least one of health or condition of the crossing system and status of the intersection, “After sending either the maintain session message at step 320 or the activate after expiration message at step 318, the processor 110 determines if the a responsive acknowledgement message is received from the wayside interface unit 152 at step 322. If the acknowledgement message is not received, or an acknowledgement indicating a malfunction or other non-satisfactory status is received, at step 322, the processor 110 ensures that the train proceeds under malfunction conditions at step 310 as described above. If an ACK message is received at step 322, the train's speed and position are updated (e.g., by checking the database and/or querying the GPS receiver 114) at step 324.” (P[0025] and Figure 3), and “the status of the wayside equipment 102 is checked at step 408 and an ACK message including the status is transmitted at step 410” (P[0027] and Figure 4). The status and acknowledgment message equate to the claimed condition of the crossing system.
Nichter does not teach the claimed displaying information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system or intersection with crossing system equipment that comprises a physical layout of the crossing system.
Ryan teaches,
the claimed displaying information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system or intersection with crossing system equipment that comprises a physical layout of the crossing system, “FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary display of information within a mobile display of the virtual crossing system. Multiple crossings within a specified area 320a-c are displayed along with their status based on the interaction of the zones of the actors within the area. As indicated, the expected time of arrival at each crossing can be estimated and displayed based on the current route 321 information of the alert receiving device.” (P[0032] and Figure 3A), and “FIGS. 4A-4B illustrate how a display of some of the information available within the virtual crossing system, e.g., in a vehicle display” (P[0036] and Figures 4A and 4B).
The display system of Ryan would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when slowing or stopping the train along the route based on the indicated alarm condition at one of the crossings (similar to when not in communication with the crossing P[0022]). The in vehicle display of the crossing could be included in either or both of a train and a vehicle crossing the tracks. The indication that the crossing arms are down (Figure 4B) would provide the train operator information that the crossing should be clear of vehicular traffic (if the traffic obeys the crossing arms). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter with the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, increase safety of crossings, and reduce the cost of installation and maintenance (Ryan P[0005]).
Nichter and Ryan et al do not teach the claimed displaying of a braking envelope of the first vehicle relative to the intersection. Rhea Jr. et al teach, “controlling braking of the train in the on-board computer by generating one or more braking profiles for the train using Td, T and αmax, which may then be displayed to the driver of the train for controlling the train” P[0008]. The display of the braking profiles would be included for the sections that include an intersection, and would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when slowing or stopping the train along the route. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter and the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan with the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide increased safety (Rhea Jr et al P[0006]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1, Ryan Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0229435 A1 and Rhea Jr. et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0241296 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daum et al Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0033605 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Nichter, Ryan and Rhea Jr et al do not teach the claimed obtaining or predicting a time of arrival of the second vehicle at the intersection, and the claimed changing movement of the first or second vehicle responsive to an overlap in times of arrival to avoid both vehicles being in or at the intersection at the same time.
Daum et al teach,
the claimed obtaining or predicting a time of arrival of the second vehicle at the intersection, “Using the actual speed, power and location of the locomotive, a comparison is made between a planned arrival time and the currently estimated (predicted) arrival time 25.” (P[0066] and Figure 1), optimizing train operating parameters that include time of arrival of multiple trains as they operate over an intersecting railroad network P[0002], “For example, as illustrated suppose that train 1 departs point A at time t1 and is scheduled to arrive at point B at time t2. Train 2 departs at time t3 from point C and is scheduled to arrive at point D at time t4. The two tracks intersect at point X.” (P[0124] and Figure 11), and
the changing movement of the first or second vehicle responsive to an overlap in times of arrival to avoid both vehicles being in or at the intersection at the same time, “It is desirable to ensure that the two trains, train 1 and train 2, do not intersect at the same time. The time of arrival t2 or t4 may change depending on the network optimizer predictions.” P[0125], and “Knowing what the projected train speed is for both trains, train 1 and train 2, a range of solutions can be found to ensure that the train 1 and train 2 do not reach the intersecting point X at the same time. The projected speed of train 1 and train 2 can be adjusted within the constraints of each train's capability.” P[0126].
The network optimizer along with the on-board optimizer of Daum et al would be incorporated by Nichter as a crossing verification. If the communication of Nichter is not established, then the same slowing or stopping of the train would occur for the upcoming intersection or crossing (Nichter P[0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter, the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan and the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al with the optimizer predictions to ensure the trains do not reach the intersecting point at the same time of Daum et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, avoid both trains arriving at an intersection at the same time (avoid collisions) (Daum et al P[0129]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1, Ryan Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0229435 A1 and Rhea Jr. et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0241296 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fries et al Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0361125 A1.
Regarding claim 8 Nichter teaches the claimed conductive circuit defines an island around the intersection, “An "island" is a term of art used in the railroad industry to refer to an area of track that more or less intersects a roadway and, sometimes, pedestrian walkways alongside the road (it is referred to as an island because in many instances this section of roadway is raised relative to other sections and thus appears as an island when the lower lying areas of road become submerged during a rainstorm). An "island circuit" is a track occupancy circuit that is configured to detect the presence of a train in the island.” P[0028],
the claimed conductive circuit detects a presence of the first vehicle, “An "island circuit" is a track occupancy circuit that is configured to detect the presence of a train in the island.” P[0028], and
the claimed conductive circuit determines a distance or speed of the first vehicle relative to the intersection, “the wayside interface unit may, once it has commanded the warning system 150 to activate, monitor the island circuit to determine when a train both enters and clears the island and, upon the train clearing the island, deactivate the warning system 150” P[0028], the claimed distance relative to the intersection equates to the determination of the train entering and clearing the island.
Nichter does not teach the claimed predicting the time of arrival of the first vehicle at the intersection based on the conductive circuit. Track circuits are common and well known in the art related to trains and rail vehicles. Fries et al teach, “As a vehicle such as a train moves toward the crossing, the axles of the train act to shunt the AC track circuit signal, shortening the distance that the signal flows through. The crossing predictor (e.g., one or more portions or aspects of the track detection system 130 and/or automatic determination module 128) measures a rate of change of the electrical impedance indicated by the signal, and estimates the speed of location of the train based on the measured electrical impedance, and estimates a predicted arrival time of the vehicle at the crossing based on the determined speed and position, and a crossing warning device may then be activated at a predetermined time interval before the predicted arrival time.” P[0036]. The track circuits of Fries et al would be used in the systems of Nichter as additional verification and/or identification of the train’s location and speed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter, the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan and the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al with the track circuits determined speed and position used to estimate a predicted arrival time of the vehicle at the crossing of Fries et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce accidents at crossings (Fries et al P[0016]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1, Ryan Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0229435 A1 and Rhea Jr. et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0241296 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kane et al Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0236482 A1.
Regarding claim 9 Nichter teaches the claimed determining when the first vehicle has completely exited the intersection based on the wireless signal, “the processor 110 onboard a train can be configured to transmit a message when the end of the train has cleared the island” P[0028].
Nichter does not teach the claimed determination that the first vehicle has exited the intersection is based on a length of the first vehicle. Kane et al teach, “If the distance traveled by the EOT exceeds the length of the train at step 418, the position of the end of the train as reported by EOT positioning system 130 is compared to the position obtained (at step 406) from the HOT positioning system at the point of interest at step 422.” (P[0033] and Figure 4a), and “A controller determines that an end of train (EOT) has passed a point through the use of positioning systems at the head of the train (HOT) and the EOT. In a first method, the controller obtains the HOT position at a point of interest from the HOT positioning system. The controller then determines when the train has traveled a distance equal to the length of the train and then interrogates the EOT positioning system.” (abstract). The point that the EOT has passed through of Kane et al equates to the crossing of Nichter (and to the claimed intersection). The determination that the end of the train has passed through a point (intersection or crossing) would be used by Nichter as a verification of the signal that the train has cleared the intersection, based on either the island circuit or the transmitted message (P[0028] of Nichter). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter, the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan and the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al with the determination that the end of the train has passed through a point of Kane et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a collision (Kane et al P[0004]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1, Ryan Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0229435 A1 and Rhea Jr. et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0241296 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reichelt et al Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0084176 A1.
Regarding claim 11 Nichter does not teach the claimed monitoring the intersection for occupation or obstruction of the intersection.
Reichelt et al teach, “Should the XPT system sense that the upcoming crossing is obstructed, the on- ground video capture system (if installed) is activated. A real time video capture of the crossing condition is broadcast to the engineer in the approaching locomotive but ideally only if the crossing is obstructed. The real-time video stream may also be recorded until either the obstruction clears, or the train passes through the crossing. By viewing the video or still video capture the locomotive driver is able to ascertain any risk well in advance of reaching the crossing, and to take appropriate action.” P[0090]. The sensing of an obstruction blocking the track would be incorporated into Nichter as part of the safety device to stop or slow the train when there is no communication with the crossing P[0022]. A communication of an obstruction on the track would also cause the stopping or slowing action to be performed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter, the in vehicle display of the crossing system of Ryan and the display of braking profiles of Rhea Jr et al with the sensing that the upcoming crossing is obstructed of Reichelt et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, ascertain the risk level in advance of reaching the crossing and take the appropriate action to avoid a collision (Reichelt et al P[0090] and P[0172]).
Claim(s) 12 thru 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1 in view of Reichelt et al Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0084176 A1 and Wydotis et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0284213 A1. (The examiner notes that the effective filing date of the claimed confirmation of proper function of the crossing system is 5/5/2023, the parent CIPs did not include this limitation in any of the descriptions.)
Regarding claim 12 Nichter teaches the claimed system, the communication based crossing control system (Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
the claimed controller onboard a first vehicle, “The onboard equipment 101 is controlled by a processor 110.” (P[0014] and Figures 1, 2), configured to:
the claimed attempt to establish a communication connection with a communication device of a crossing system disposed proximate to an intersection, “If a new crossing is in range at step 304, the processor 110 attempts to establish a communication session with the wayside interface unit 152 at the crossing by transmitting a "session request" message at step 306. Preferably, the session request message is addressed to the specific wayside interface unit 152 identified in step 304 (as will be discussed in further detail below, there may be multiple wayside interface units within the threshold range of the train, and possibly even multiple wayside interface units being controlled by the train at any one time).” (P[0022] and Figure 3);
the claimed send a wireless signal indicative of one or more of a location, heading or speed of the first vehicle, “The process begins with the processor 102 determining the train speed and position at step 302. The current speed and position may be determined from information received from the GPS receiver 114.” (P[0021] and Figure 3), “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1), “the central station 190 includes a first transceiver 192, in this case a wireless transceiver, for communicating with the onboard equipment 101” (P[0020] and Figure 2), and “The processor is connected to a GPS receiver 114, from which it receives messages including the location of the train. In some embodiments, the messages may further include a time, a heading, and a speed.” P[0014], and at least on of:
the claimed determine the time of arrival of the first vehicle at the intersection, “the processor 110 calculates an estimated arrival time for the crossing at the top of the list at step 314. The estimated arrival time (i.e., the estimated time at which the train will arrive at the crossing) is calculated based at least in part on the train speed and the distance between the current train position and the location of the crossing retrieved from the track database 112 (those of skill will recognize that more refined estimates could include a current acceleration of the train).” (P[0023] and Figure 3), and
the claimed slow or stop the first vehicle prior to entering into the intersection if the communication connection is not established, “The train may proceed under malfunction conditions in a number of ways. For example, in some embodiments, the processor may ensure that the train comes to a complete stop prior to reaching the crossing, and then allow the train to proceed through the crossing at a low speed. Alternatively, the processor 110 may allow the train to proceed through the crossing at a low speed without coming to a complete stop.” P[0022].
Nichter does not teach the claimed obtain information from the communication device that the intersection is obstructed, or will be obstructed at the time of arrival if the communication connection is established.
Reichelt et al teach,
the claimed obtain information from the communication device that the intersection is obstructed, “determining whether said crossing is obstructed”, “communicating whether said crossing is obstructed to said locomotive” (P[0015] and P[0016]), and “The XPT video imaging system can determine if the crossing is obstructed, and transmit a warning to the locomotive engineer.” P[0083].
The communication to the locomotive engineer of an obstruction of Reichelt et al would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when deciding to slow or stop the train along the route. It would be implemented as an indicated alarm condition at one of the crossings (similar to when not in communication with the crossing P[0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter with the determining if the crossing is obstructed and transmit a warning to the locomotive engineer of Reichelt et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve railroad crossing systems to provide accurate detection of trains approaching, traversing, resting within and exiting the detection area associated with a railroad crossing (Reichelt et al P[0010]).
Nichter and Reichelt et al do not teach the claimed obtain confirmation from the communication device that the crossing system is functioning properly and acting to prevent any second vehicle from being in the intersection at the time of arrival if the communication connection is established. Wydotis et al teach, “as soon as the wayside control device 130, for example GCP, detects and determines that the trains 120a, 120b are approaching the crossing 125 and produces the signal(s) to activate the warning devices 140, 145, the wayside control device 130 also communicates or transmits information about the status of the crossing 125 via a communication network” P[0019], “These crossing status information, which includes for example that the crossing 125 and warning devices 140, 145 have been activated is transmitted to the trains 120a, 120b. The crossing information is supplemented with train data, such as for example train speed, train direction and train location, provided by the trains 120a, 120b, using their PTC systems. The combined crossing status information (provided by the wayside control device 130) and the train data (provided by the trains 120a, 120b) is communicated by the trains 120a, 120b to the vehicle 150.” P[0030], and “The crossing information comprises crossing status information such as that the crossing 125 has been activated and an activation duration. The train data comprises at least train speed, train direction and estimated time of arrival of railroad vehicle at the railroad grade crossing 125.” (P[0033] and Figure 3). The communication between trains, other vehicles, and wayside control regarding trains at crossings and the activation of warning devices indicates a crossing status (claimed crossing system functioning properly), any this communication would be included in the communication control system of Nichter. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter and the determining if the crossing is obstructed and transmit a warning to the locomotive engineer of Reichelt et al with the communication of crossing status of Wydotis et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve vehicular safety by providing information to motorists about the status of the railroad grade crossing and the approaching railway vehicles before the crossing becomes visible to the motorists. (Wydotis et al P[0005]).
Regarding claim 13 Nichter teaches the claimed crossing system configured to determine the time of arrival of the first vehicle at the intersection, “The process begins with the processor 102 determining the train speed and position at step 302. The current speed and position may be determined from information received from the GPS receiver 114.” (P[0021] and Figures 1, 3).
Regarding claim 14 Nichter teaches the claimed conductive circuit to determine that the first vehicle has contacted the conductive circuit, “An "island circuit" is a track occupancy circuit that is configured to detect the presence of a train in the island.” P[0028].
Regarding claim 15 Nichter teaches the claimed crossing system determines one or more of the location, heading, or movement speed based on the wireless signal and the conductive circuit, “The process begins with the processor 102 determining the train speed and position at step 302. The current speed and position may be determined from information received from the GPS receiver 114.” (P[0021] and Figure 3), “the wayside equipment 102 utilizes a wireless transceiver 154 to communicate with the transceiver 116 onboard the train” (P[0018] and Figure 1), and “the wayside interface unit may, once it has commanded the warning system 150 to activate, monitor the island circuit to determine when a train both enters and clears the island and, upon the train clearing the island, deactivate the warning system 150” P0028], the claimed distance equates to the points where the determination of the train entering and clearing the island is made.
Regarding claim 17 Nichter teaches the claimed obtain information about the location, heading or moving speed of the first vehicle referencing a positive vehicle control system onboard the first vehicle, “A more recent development in train safety has been the use of positive train control, or PTC, systems onboard locomotives. These systems are designed to prevent collisions between trains, to enforce speed restrictions, and to perform other safety-related functions. Although these systems vary widely in their implementation, many of them share common characteristics such as a positioning systems and map databases that allow a locomotive to determine its position relative to a track system and communications system that allow the locomotive to communicate with devices located off of the train.” P[0005].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1, Reichelt et al Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0084176 A1 and Wydotis et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0284213 A1 as applied to claims 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Daum et al Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0033605 A1.
Regarding claim 16 Nichter, Reichelt et al and Wydotis et al do not teach the claimed obtain or predict a time of arrival of a second vehicle at the intersection, and the claimed change a movement of the first or second vehicle responsive to an overlap in times of arrival to avoid both vehicles being in or at the intersection at the same time.
Daum et al teach,
the claimed obtain or predict a time of arrival of a second vehicle at the intersection, “Using the actual speed, power and location of the locomotive, a comparison is made between a planned arrival time and the currently estimated (predicted) arrival time 25.” (P[0066] and Figure 1), optimizing train operating parameters that include time of arrival of multiple trains as they operate over an intersecting railroad network P[0002], “For example, as illustrated suppose that train 1 departs point A at time t1 and is scheduled to arrive at point B at time t2. Train 2 departs at time t3 from point C and is scheduled to arrive at point D at time t4. The two tracks intersect at point X.” (P[0124] and Figure 11), and
the change a movement of the first or second vehicle responsive to an overlap in times of arrival to avoid both vehicles being in or at the intersection at the same time, “It is desirable to ensure that the two trains, train 1 and train 2, do not intersect at the same time. The time of arrival t2 or t4 may change depending on the network optimizer predictions.” P[0125], and “Knowing what the projected train speed is for both trains, train 1 and train 2, a range of solutions can be found to ensure that the train 1 and train 2 do not reach the intersecting point X at the same time. The projected speed of train 1 and train 2 can be adjusted within the constraints of each train's capability.” P[0126].
The network optimizer along with the on-board optimizer of Daum et al would be incorporated by Nichter as a crossing verification. If the communication of Nichter is not established, then the same slowing or stopping of the train would occur for the upcoming intersection or crossing (Nichter P[0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter, the determining if the crossing is obstructed and transmit a warning to the locomotive engineer of Reichelt et al and the communication of crossing status of Wydotis et al with the optimizer predictions to ensure the trains do not reach the intersecting point at the same time of Daum et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, avoid both trains arriving at an intersection at the same time (avoid collisions) (Daum et al P[0129]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichter Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0248261 A1, Reichelt et al Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0084176 A1 and Wydotis et al Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0284213 A1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Stevenson et al Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0040070 A1.
Regarding claim 18 Nichter, Reichelt et al and Wydotis et al do not explicitly teach the claimed visual display onboard the first vehicle and controller to display information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system/intersection with crossing equipment, and the claimed displayed information comprising at least on of an aspect of the crossing system or a status of the intersection being obstructed or non-obstructed. Reichelt et al do teach a display screen that includes visual warnings to slow down because of a risk of collision P[0100].
Stevenson et al teach,
the claimed display unit onboard the first vehicle and controller to display information to an operator of the first vehicle relating to an upcoming crossing system/intersection with crossing equipment, a central processor board 180 (P[0033] and Figure 4) (claimed controller), and “FIG. 6 illustrates one embodiment of a display screen shot of an exemplar user interface for the train's engineer. In the view illustrated, video from the next four monitoring stations are shown 230, 232, 234, and 236. The train's route (or a portion thereof with the monitoring stations marked along the way is indicated in window 240. This window also reflects the train's location 242 along the path and a bezel indicates the monitoring stations for which information is being displayed.” (P[0037] and Figure 6), and
the claimed display information comprising at least on of an aspect of the crossing system or a status of the intersection being obstructed or non-obstructed, “Flashing halos 246 and 248 around the monitoring station locations indicate an alarm condition at that location. One of the monitoring stations 246 is indicated to be in an alarm condition. This station is also indicated as in view on the display by being within bezel 244. Video from this station is running in window 232 which also has a flashing halo 233 indicating an alarm has been detected at that monitoring station. An audio alarm is also toned--further drawing the engineer's attention to the situation.” P[0037], and the station 232 shows a school bus is stopped on the tracks of an upcoming crossing (Figure 6) (claimed status of the intersection being obstructed).
The display system of Stevenson et al would be incorporated into Nichter as equipment for the train operator to use when slowing or stopping the train along the route (similar to when not in communication with the crossing P[0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the methods and systems of communication based crossing control of Nichter, the determining if the crossing is obstructed and transmit a warning to the locomotive engineer of Reichelt et al and the communication of crossing status of Wydotis et al with the display of an obstruction at an upcoming crossing of the route of Stevenson et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, identify and respond to risks related to railroad transportation (Stevenson et al P[0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights