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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/23 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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 “an onboard alert device associated with the train performing the shove operation” (emphasis added). However, the claim otherwise repeatedly characterizes the relevant movement as a “shove move” (e.g., “during a shove move” and “the train performing the shove move”). The term “shove operation” lacks antecedent basis and creates uncertainty as to whether “shove operation” is intended to be the same event as the recited “shove move,” or a different operation.
Because the claim scope is unclear as to the relationship between “shove move” and “shove operation,” the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not set forth with reasonable certainty.
Claim 7 recites, in relevant part: “a second train position detector configures to be positioned at a side of a railway track … to detect the localized position of the train … when said train passed the second train position detectors.” Claim 7 is indefinite for at least the following reasons.
First, the claim introduces “a second train position detector” (singular) but later refers to “the second train position detectors” (plural). This inconsistency renders unclear whether the claim requires one second detector or multiple second detectors.
Second, the phrase “when said train passed” is grammatically and temporally inconsistent with the surrounding present-tense functional language (e.g., “configured to detect”), and it is unclear whether detection is required (i) as the train passes the detector, (ii) after the train has passed, or (iii) at some other time. This lack of clarity prevents a determination of the required operational relationship between the train and the “second train position detector.”
Claim 16 recites: “communicating … the detection signal to an onboard alert device … wherein the train position detector communicates the detection signal to the onboard via the wireless mesh communication network …” (emphasis added). The term “the onboard” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the onboard” refers to the onboard alert device, an onboard computer, an onboard network, or some other onboard component.
Additionally, claim 16 recites “associated with the train performing the shove operation,” while other steps recite “during a shove move.” As set forth above with respect to claim 1, the inconsistent use of “shove operation” and “shove move” introduces uncertainty as to whether these refer to the same activity.
PRIOR ART REFERENCES RELIED UPON
Reference 1 (Primary): Hilleary, US 2021/0001903 A1, published Jan. 7, 2021, “RAILROAD CAR LOCATION, SPEED, AND HEADING DETECTION SYSTEM AND METHODS WITH SELF-POWERED WIRELESS SENSOR NODES.”
Reference 2: Roberts et al., US 2019/0126956 A1, published May 2, 2019, “EMERGENCY ACTION SYSTEM FOR USE WITH A LOCOMOTIVE.”
Reference 3: Dan et al., US 2020/0162945 A1, published May 21, 2020, “NETWORK SYSTEM, WIRELESS NETWORK EXTENDER, AND NETWORK PROVIDER.”
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.
A. CLAIMS 1-9 AND 12-15 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER HILLEARY (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF ROBERTS (REFERENCE 2).
B. CLAIMS 10-11 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER HILLEARY (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF ROBERTS (REFERENCE 2) AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF DAN (REFERENCE 3).
C. CLAIMS 16-20 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER HILLEARY (REFERENCE 1) IN VIEW OF ROBERTS (REFERENCE 2).
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 1 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
A shove move protection system for use in a multi-track railyard, the shove protection system comprising: a wireless mesh communication network; at least one train position detector communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network and associated with a railway track, the train position detector configured to detect a localized position of a train traveling on the railway track during a shove move and to generate a detection signal indicative of the localized position when the train performing the shove move approaches a pre-defined buffer zone; and an onboard alert device associated with the train performing the shove operation, the onboard alert device communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network and configured to receive the detection signal from the train position detector via the wireless mesh communication network and to generate an onboard alarm in response thereto.
ANALYSIS
A shove move protection system for use in a multi-track railyard
Hilleary teaches deployment of a railroad detection system in railroad settings including a classification yard and switched track arrangements, and teaches defining/monitoring protected areas or zones to facilitate safe switching operations (i.e., yard movements including shoving/pushing movements) using multiple sensor node devices along track sections.
Wireless mesh communication network
Hilleary teaches multiple sensor nodes arranged in a network that “may be a wireless mesh network,” and teaches near-field mesh network wireless communication among the sensor node devices (multi-hop, redundant), as illustrated with sensor nodes 202 communicating through a mesh network and concentrators 208/210/212 feeding a master processor 214 and yard control system 150.
At least one train position detector communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network and associated with a railway track
Hilleary teaches a plurality of processor-based sensor node devices (sensor nodes 202) arranged along a section of railroad track and collectively defining a wireless mesh network, with sensor nodes 202 mountable to railroad ties 204 supporting rails 206; sensor nodes 202 include transmitter 258 and receiver 260 for wireless communication, i.e., communicatively coupled to the mesh network and physically associated with the railway track structure.
Train position detector configured to detect a localized position of a train traveling on the railway track during a shove move
Hilleary teaches that sensor node devices in the protected area sense information (at least presence, and optionally location/speed/heading) of a locomotive engine/railroad car as it moves through the predefined protected area; the speed and heading are derivable from sensed presence information collected from contiguous nodes 202, which constitutes localized position information in the monitored track section (i.e., where the train is within the defined zone).
Additionally, Roberts teaches detection during rail yard movements including coupling/shove operations, and teaches detecting movement conditions and distances and warning the locomotive operator based on those detections, reinforcing that such detection/alerting during yard movements (including shove moves) was well-known.
Generate a detection signal indicative of the localized position when the train approaches a pre-defined buffer zone
Hilleary teaches defining and monitoring “protected areas or zones” on track sections (i.e., predefined zones) via spaced sensor nodes 202, and that detection communications/messages are triggered by detections as a moving object (e.g., train/locomotive) progresses through those predefined protected areas; such a protected area corresponds to the claimed “buffer zone,” and the triggered communications are the claimed detection signal indicative of the train’s localized position relative to the zone boundary (entering/approaching the zone).
Onboard alert device associated with the train performing the shove operation; communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh; receives the detection signal via the mesh; generates an onboard alarm
Roberts teaches an onboard train display device 120 placed in the locomotive cab, having an LCD display 122 and a horn/audible alarm 124, and teaches that the portable object detector device 110 transmits information to the train display device 120, which sends a warning to the locomotive operator and can activate the horn/alarm (i.e., onboard alarm).
Hilleary teaches the mesh network infrastructure that routes detection information toward system processors/controls (e.g., toward concentrators 208/210/212 and master processor 214), evidencing that detection information is carried over the mesh network from track-associated nodes. It would have been obvious to deliver that same detection information over the Hilleary mesh to an onboard operator alerting interface as taught by Roberts (train display device 120 with horn 124), so the train performing the shove move receives immediate onboard alarms when entering/approaching the protected zone/buffer zone, rather than (or in addition to) only delivering such data to a yard control system.
Ref. 1: [0024]-[0027] (switching yard/multiple close proximity tracks context), [0042] (cars “pushed or shoved”), [0051]-[0053] (sensor nodes define protection zone; mesh/redundancy), [0055]-[0059] (sensor node detection + radio/transceiver communications), [0070]-[0074] (mesh protocol; ISM/Wi-Fi), [0077] (tracking throughout yard), [0100]-[0106] (protected area/zone; detection elements; track section). Ref. 2: [0003]-[0006] (rail yard; shove move described), [0013]-[0015] (system overview), [0019]-[0021] (remote sensor/radar; speed/direction/ranging concepts), [0020] (900 MHz radio), [0025]-[0029] (train display device warning; communications; operator notification). Ref. 3: [0018]-[0020] (Wi-Fi/cellular/BLE communications interfaces), [0021]-[0024] (multiple channels/protocols + failover), [0031]-[0033] (mesh + cellular integration).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 1)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Roberts’ onboard alerting approach (train display device 120 with audible alarm 124 providing immediate operator warnings based on detected unsafe proximity/movement conditions in a rail yard) into Hilleary’s track-associated, multi-hop wireless mesh detection network (sensor nodes 202 defining protected zones for switching operations) to provide direct, real-time operator alarms when the moving train reaches/approaches the predefined protected area/buffer zone. This combination predictably improves safety during switching/shove operations by reducing reaction time and reducing reliance on centralized-only yard control indication, using known elements for their known purpose (warning operators of hazardous conditions) with no change in fundamental operation of either reference.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 2 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, further comprising at least one personal alert device communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network, the personal alert device being portable, the personal alert device configured to receive the detection signal from the train position detector via the wireless mesh communication network and to generate a personal alarm in response thereto.
ANALYSIS
Claim 2 includes the limitations of claim 1 (met for the reasons set forth above) and further requires a portable personal alert device coupled to the mesh network, receiving the detection signal and generating a personal alarm.
Roberts teaches a user/crew member portable emergency action device 300 (illustrated as a handheld/wearable device) that includes an emergency stop button 302 and is used by crew members working on the ground during rail operations to address unsafe movement situations; Roberts further teaches communications between the emergency action device transmitter and locomotive equipment/transceiver to effect safety actions, evidencing a portable personal device used in the rail yard safety context and communicatively coupled into the system’s communications scheme.
Given Hilleary’s mesh network communication among nodes 202 and Roberts’ portable crew safety device 300, it would have been obvious to implement (or configure) Roberts’ portable personal device (or equivalent) as a mesh-network node/device that receives Hilleary’s detection messages (detection signal) and outputs an alarm to the person (personal alarm), to warn ground personnel or remote operators of the same hazardous approach-to-zone condition being reported onboard. This is a straightforward application of known rail yard safety devices to disseminate warnings to personnel in the vicinity of switching/shove movements.
Ref. 1: (no dedicated “personal alert device” emphasis; use Ref. 1 mainly for mesh network context) [0051]-[0053], [0058]-[0059]. Ref. 2: [0029] (operator carries/uses devices during yard movement), [0030]-[0034] (emergency action device worn on safety vest; indicator; crew member device), plus system communications context [0025]-[0029]. Ref. 3: [0018]-[0020] (UE/portable device communications over Wi-Fi/cellular/BLE).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 2)
It would have been obvious to add a portable personal alert device to the combined system of claim 1 because Roberts teaches providing ground crew with a personal safety device (device 300) used during rail yard operations to address unsafe movements; extending Hilleary’s already-wireless detection messages to such a portable device provides the predictable benefit of warning personnel who may not be in the locomotive cab (e.g., ground crew, remote operators), improving safety without undue experimentation.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 3 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 2, wherein the train position detector, the onboard alert device, and the personal alert device comprise nodes on the wireless mesh communication network.
ANALYSIS
Claim 3 includes the limitations of claim 2 (and thus claim 1) and further requires that the train position detector, onboard alert device, and personal alert device are “nodes” on the mesh network.
Hilleary expressly teaches a plurality of sensor node devices 202 that form a wireless mesh network and communicate peer-to-peer, i.e., each sensor node 202 is a “node” in the mesh network; sensor nodes include transmitter 258 and receiver 260 facilitating node-to-node mesh operation.
Roberts teaches that the train display device 120 includes communications capability (radio/antenna) to communicate with the detector device 110; and teaches portable device 300 having transmitter capability. Such devices are “nodes” in a wireless network in that they are addressable communication participants that send/receive messages.
Therefore, in the combined system, it would have been obvious to implement (i) the track-associated detector(s) as mesh nodes (Hilleary sensor nodes 202), (ii) the onboard alert device as a mesh-participating node (Roberts train display device 120 with radio), and (iii) the portable personal device as a mesh-participating node (Roberts device 300), consistent with the references’ wireless communication teachings.
Ref. 1: [0053] (mesh networking; redundancy), [0058]-[0059] (sensor node radio/transceiver; communications with other sensor nodes and concentrators), [0071]-[0073] (TSMP mesh; nodes communicating). Ref. 2: [0043] (wireless sensors set up in a wireless network; nodes/transceivers). Ref. 3: [0023] (mesh network cluster architecture).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 3)
Designating the participating communicating devices (track detector, onboard display, portable personal device) as mesh “nodes” is a predictable network engineering choice aligned with Hilleary’s mesh node architecture (nodes 202) and Roberts’ radio-equipped onboard/portable safety devices (120/300), improving routing flexibility and redundancy in a rail yard environment.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 4 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 2, wherein the personal alert device is configured to generate the personal alarm using at least one of a visual feedback, haptic feedback, and audio feedback.
ANALYSIS
Claim 4 includes the limitations of claim 2 (and thus claim 1) and further specifies the alarm modalities for the personal alert device.
Roberts teaches alerting/warning outputs provided to personnel as part of the safety system, including audible warnings (alarm/horn) and visual indications on devices (e.g., device indications such as low battery indication shown on the portable device 300). At minimum, Roberts teaches an audible alarm paradigm and visual indication on a portable device, which satisfies “at least one of visual feedback … and audio feedback.”
Thus, when Roberts’ portable device concept is used as the claim 2 personal alert device receiving detection signals from Hilleary’s mesh, the device’s alarm may be provided by at least one of audio and visual feedback.
Ref. 1: (mesh context) [0051]-[0053]. Ref. 2: [0027] (train display device provides warning; horn + display provides audio/visual outputs), [0032] (indicator light on wearable device supports visual output). Ref. 3: (portable UE platform generally capable of user alerting; communications basis) [0018]-[0020].
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 4)
It would have been obvious to implement personal alarms using known human-perceivable modalities (audio and/or visual) as taught by Roberts for rail yard safety warnings, because such modalities are conventional, require minimal additional complexity, and predictably improve the likelihood that a user notices the warning during switching/shove operations.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 5 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the onboard alert device is configured to generate the onboard alarm using at least one of a siren and a strobe light.
ANALYSIS
Claim 5 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further specifies that the onboard alarm is generated using at least one of a siren and a strobe light.
Roberts teaches that the train display device 120 includes a horn or audible alarm 124, which is an audible warning device on the locomotive (i.e., a siren-type audible alarm). Roberts further teaches the train display device 120 issues warnings to the locomotive operator based on detected unsafe situations, and activates the audible alarm/horn 124 under specified proximity/movement conditions.
Accordingly, the combined system of claim 1 would have an onboard alert device configured to generate an onboard alarm using at least a siren/audible alarm (horn 124), meeting the “at least one of” requirement.
Ref. 2: [0027] (audible warning via horn; warning outputs).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 5)
It would have been obvious to use an audible alarm (siren/horn) for onboard alerting because Roberts demonstrates that an audible alarm 124 in the locomotive provides immediate operator feedback during hazardous movements, and audible alarms are a predictable, robust warning mechanism in noisy rail yard environments.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 6 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the train position detector is positioned at an end of a railway track and is configured to detect the localized position of the train performing the shove move when said train approaches the train position detector.
ANALYSIS
Claim 6 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further requires positioning the train position detector at an end of a railway track, with detection when the train approaches the detector.
Hilleary teaches defining and monitoring protected areas/zones on selected sections of railroad track using tie-mounted sensor nodes 202 and teaches that sections of tracks and protection zones may be defined and installed in a retrofit manner to existing railroad tracks, i.e., the protected zone may be selected based on the operational need and location on the track section.
Given Hilleary’s express teaching that the monitored/protected zone is definable on a section of track for switching operations, it would have been obvious to position at least one of Hilleary’s track-associated detectors (sensor node(s) 202, or a group of nodes 202) at/near the end of a railway track to define the protected area/buffer zone at that track end, because the end-of-track is a well-known hazard location during shoving operations (risk of overrun/collision). When the train approaches that end location, the sensor node(s) 202 sense presence/location within the zone and generate communications (detection signals) as described for claim 1. The resulting detection is “when said train approaches the train position detector” because the train’s approach into the zone adjacent the end-of-track causes the sensor node detection event at that end location.
Ref. 1: [0051] (sensor nodes placed along track segment and define a “protection zone of desired length” — used as the placement/zone basis), [0104]-[0106] (protected area defined as a section of track; predefined protected area concept). Ref. 2: (general yard movement context) [0029].
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 6)
It would have been obvious to locate Hilleary’s track-mounted sensor nodes 202 at a track end because Hilleary teaches placing nodes to define protected areas/zones for safe switching operations, and selecting the track end as the zone location is a predictable, safety-driven design choice to detect and warn of an approaching train before it reaches the end-of-track hazard during shove moves.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 7 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, further comprising a second train position detector configures to be positioned at a side of a railway track and to detect the localized position of the train performing the shove move when said train passed the second train position detectors.
ANALYSIS
Claim 7 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further adds a second train position detector positioned at a side of the railway track to detect localized position as the train passes.
Hilleary teaches deploying a plurality of sensor node devices 202 in spaced relation along track, mountable to ties 204 supporting rails 206, and collectively defining protected areas/zones; these sensors are physically located adjacent the train path on the track structure (tie-mounted/rail-mounted), i.e., positioned along/at the side of the track structure (ties/rails) rather than being an onboard-only sensor. As the train 104 passes over/through the region of each sensor node 202, the sensor node detects presence and communicates detection information. This constitutes detection at a localized position corresponding to that sensor location as the train passes that detector location.
Thus, the combined system includes at least a first detector (for claim 1) and, additionally, a second detector (another sensor node 202 or group of nodes 202) placed at another location along the side/along the track to detect the train as it passes.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 7)
It would have been obvious to add a second track-associated detector at another location (including alongside the track) because Hilleary teaches using plural spaced sensor nodes 202 to improve detection fidelity and to derive movement/location information; adding another detector yields the predictable benefit of additional localization points and redundancy during shove moves.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 8 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the train position detector defines a detection zone and is further configured to provide real-time position information for a train traveling within the detection zone.
ANALYSIS
Claim 8 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further requires that the detector defines a detection zone and provides real-time position information within that zone.
Hilleary teaches that a predefined protected area (zone) is established by the arrangement of sensor nodes 202 on a section of track, and that location/speed/heading information is sensed/determined for a moving object within that predefined protected area, with derivation based on contiguous node detections as the train progresses through the protected area. This is real-time (or near real-time) position information within the defined monitored zone because node detections occur as the train moves and are communicated over the mesh network for processing by concentrators and/or master processor 214.
Roberts further corroborates real-time onboard display of movement/proximity information by teaching that LCD display 122 may display separation distances and speed and that alarms/warnings are issued based on distance thresholds, evidencing real-time reporting to operators in yard movements.
Therefore, the train position detector(s) define a detection zone (Hilleary protected area) and provide real-time position information while the train travels within it (via node detections and derived location/heading/speed).
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 8)
It would have been obvious to provide real-time position information within a defined detection zone because Hilleary already establishes protected areas and derives location/speed/heading as the train moves through the zone, and Roberts demonstrates the known benefit of presenting real-time distances/speeds to an operator; combining these provides a predictable safety improvement during shove operations.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 9 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the wireless mesh communication network utilizes ISM band radios operating in industrial scientific and medical (ISM) frequency bands, cellular networks, or a combination thereof.
ANALYSIS
Claim 9 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further specifies the wireless mesh network utilizes ISM band radios, cellular networks, or a combination.
Hilleary teaches short-range/near-field mesh network wireless communications among sensor nodes 202, and further teaches use of Wi-Fi access points (concentrators) as part of the system; Wi-Fi operates in unlicensed ISM/UNII frequency bands such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, satisfying ISM band radios in the mesh system context.
Roberts teaches cellular communications as part of transmitting data from the anti-collision system (system 100) through a cellular system 154 (and/or other long-range infrastructure), evidencing cellular network use in rail yard safety monitoring systems.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the combined Hilleary/Roberts system to utilize unlicensed/ISM-band wireless for the mesh nodes and also cellular networks (or a combination) for increased coverage and reliability, particularly in a large multi-track yard.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 9)
It would have been obvious to utilize ISM-band radios and/or cellular networks because Hilleary teaches wireless mesh and Wi-Fi concentrator communications for track detection systems, and Roberts teaches cellular infrastructure for communicating rail yard safety data; combining them predictably improves connectivity and coverage for alerts and position reporting across a multi-track yard.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 10 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the wireless mesh communication network is configured to utilize multiple means of wireless communication to deliver the detection signal such that if a first means of wireless communication fails to communicate the signal, a second means of wireless communication communicates the signal.
ANALYSIS
Claim 10 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further requires multiple wireless communication means such that if a first fails, a second communicates the detection signal.
Hilleary teaches redundant and multi-hop mesh communications among sensor nodes 202 and concentrators, which inherently provides alternate routing paths if a given link/node is unavailable (multi-hop mesh resiliency).
Dan further teaches a mesh network with a redundancy mechanism using different communication protocols: a wireless network extender 120 connects to a wireless network router 110 through a first communication channel CH1; when the first communication channel is unavailable (failure to connect), the extender 120 connects through a second communication channel CH3, where CH1 and CH3 use different communication protocols. This expressly teaches “if first fails, second communicates.”
Thus, in the combined rail yard detection/alert system (Hilleary + Roberts), incorporating Dan’s dual-channel redundancy mechanism teaches configuring the wireless mesh/network infrastructure to deliver detection signals using multiple wireless communication means with failover from a first to a second.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 10)
It would have been obvious to incorporate Dan’s multi-protocol failover redundancy into Hilleary’s rail yard mesh detection network (as supplemented with Roberts’ alerting) to improve reliability of safety-critical detection-signal delivery; ensuring continued alert delivery despite communication failures is a known design goal for safety systems, and Dan provides a predictable implementation (CH1/CH3 failover) that would have been straightforward to apply to the detection-signal transport in a mesh-based yard system.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 11 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 10, wherein the means of wireless communication comprises at least one of an XBEE module, ZigBee, Bluetooth classical, Bluetooth low energy, Wi-Fi, universal software radio peripheral, software-defined radio, Cellular Data Networks, 900 MHz radio band, 2.4 GHz radio band, and 5 GHz radio band.
ANALYSIS
Claim 11 includes the limitations of claim 10 (and thus claim 1) and further requires that the means of wireless communication comprises at least one of the listed technologies/bands.
At least the following enumerated items are taught by the applied references:
Wi-Fi: Hilleary teaches Wi-Fi access points/concentrators in the system architecture; Dan teaches a first communication channel CH1 between wireless network extender 120 and wireless network router 110, which is consistent with Wi-Fi channel communication in a wireless router/extender architecture.
2.4 GHz / 5 GHz radio bands: Hilleary’s disclosure of Wi-Fi concentrators and wireless communications implies operation in common Wi-Fi frequency bands including 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz used for such systems, consistent with conventional Wi-Fi implementations referenced by the Wi-Fi concentrator architecture.
Cellular Data Networks: Roberts teaches transmitting data via a cellular system 154 as part of the system’s communications architecture, meeting “Cellular Data Networks.”
900 MHz radio band: Roberts explicitly teaches the portable object detector device 110 may include a 900 MHz radio, and that the radio transmits information to the train display device 120.
Because claim 11 requires “at least one of” the listed items, the above teachings satisfy the limitation.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 11)
It would have been obvious to implement the multiple communication means of claim 10 using one or more of the expressly taught technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi, cellular, and/or 900 MHz radio) because Hilleary, Roberts, and Dan each demonstrate such radio technologies in closely related wireless systems; selecting among known wireless technologies/bands to implement redundant links is a predictable design choice guided by coverage, interference, and reliability needs in a rail yard.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 12 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the train position detector comprises a range sensor and a proximity sensor configured to determine a location of the train and a direction of travel of the train relative to the determined location.
ANALYSIS
Claim 12 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further specifies that the train position detector includes a range sensor and a proximity sensor configured to determine train location and direction of travel relative to the determined location.
Roberts teaches a portable object detector device 110 that includes a remote sensor such as radar; Roberts further teaches the remote sensor may include radar and also LiDAR (laser-based distance measurement), and teaches that transmitted information includes speed, direction, distance, and type of object; Roberts also teaches the remote sensor determines range and direction/speed of objects (movement/direction). Roberts further teaches GPS use for real-time movement/location context and predetermined distance thresholds tied to alarms, which together meet determining location and direction of travel relative to a determined location/distance reference.
Accordingly, the train position detector of the combined system would include (at least) a radar range sensor and a LiDAR/laser-based proximity/distance sensor capability (or vice versa), and would be configured to determine distance (range/proximity) and direction of travel (direction/speed) relative to the detector location.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 12)
It would have been obvious to incorporate Roberts’ range/proximity sensing modalities (radar/LiDAR and related distance/direction determinations) into a track-based detection system because Roberts shows these sensors provide accurate range and movement direction information useful for safety warnings; integrating such sensing into Hilleary’s mesh-based zone monitoring would predictably improve localization fidelity and hazard assessment for shove move protection.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 13 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 12, wherein the range sensor comprises at least one of a vision sensor and a RADAR detector.
ANALYSIS
Claim 13 includes the limitations of claim 12 (and thus claim 1) and further specifies the range sensor comprises at least one of a vision sensor and a RADAR detector.
Roberts expressly teaches the remote sensor of the portable object detector device 110 may include radar (i.e., a RADAR detector) used to determine range/direction/speed information. Therefore, the range sensor comprises at least a RADAR detector, satisfying the “at least one of” requirement.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 13)
It would have been obvious to implement the range sensor as a RADAR detector because Roberts expressly identifies radar as a suitable remote sensor for determining range and direction/speed in rail yard safety systems; using radar provides predictable performance benefits (range measurement and motion information) for shove move protection.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 14 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 12, wherein the proximity sensor comprises at least one of a LiDAR detector and a laser range finder.
ANALYSIS
Claim 14 includes the limitations of claim 12 (and thus claim 1) and further specifies the proximity sensor comprises at least one of a LiDAR detector and a laser range finder.
Roberts teaches LiDAR as an example of a system similar to radar, specifically describing LiDAR as using lasers and measuring distance by illuminating a target with a laser and analyzing reflected light (i.e., a laser-based ranging sensor). This meets at least a LiDAR detector and/or a laser range-finding function, satisfying the “at least one of” requirement.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 14)
It would have been obvious to use LiDAR/laser ranging as a proximity sensor because Roberts expressly teaches LiDAR as a distance-measuring remote sensing technology suitable for rail yard safety detection; LiDAR predictably improves close-range distance accuracy for determining proximity and triggering timely alarms in shove operations.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 15 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The system of claim 1, wherein the train position detector comprises a first train position detector, and further comprising a second train position detector communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network and associated with a second railway track, wherein the first train position detector and the second train position detector are configured to use different means of position detection.
ANALYSIS
Claim 15 includes the limitations of claim 1 and further requires: (i) first and second train position detectors, (ii) associated with different tracks (a second railway track), (iii) both coupled to the wireless mesh, and (iv) configured to use different means of position detection.
Hilleary teaches a plurality of sensor node devices 202 arranged along track sections, including in multi-track environments (close proximity railroad tracks) where nodes are arranged “along a path of travel on each of the close proximity railroad tracks,” and defines predefined protected areas for such tracks, evidencing detectors deployed on more than one track and communicating in a mesh network.
Hilleary further teaches that each sensor node device may include a plurality of different detection elements selected from among inductor 292, magnetometer 294, vibration sensor 296, acoustic sensor 298, impulse radar (MIR) 302, ultrasonic 304, ambient light 306, etc., and thus supports configuring different detectors to use different detection means (e.g., one detector using vibration/inductor sensing, another using impulse radar/ultrasonic).
Therefore, the combined system teaches first and second train position detectors associated with different tracks, with different detection means, and communicatively coupled to the mesh.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 15)
It would have been obvious to deploy multiple detectors on multiple tracks and to configure them with different detection means because Hilleary teaches multi-track protected-area monitoring and teaches multiple different detection modalities in sensor nodes to improve deterministic detection and reduce false detections; selecting different modalities for different track locations is a predictable engineering choice to accommodate differing environmental/installation constraints and to increase robustness.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 16 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
A method of providing shove move protection in a multi-track railyard, the method comprising: defining, by a train position detector, a detection zone within the multi-track railyard, wherein the train position detector is associated with a railway track and communicatively coupled to a wireless mesh communication network; detecting, by the train position detector, a localized position of a train traveling on the railway track during a shove move; generating, by the train position detector, a detection signal indicative of the localized position when the train performing the shove move approaches a pre-defined buffer zone; and communicating, by the train position detector, the detection signal to an onboard alert device communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network and associated with the train performing the shove operation, wherein the train position detector communicates the detection signal to the onboard via the wireless mesh communication network, and wherein the onboard alert device generates an onboard alarm in response to the communicated detection signal.
ANALYSIS
Defining, by a train position detector, a detection zone within the multi-track railyard; detector associated with a railway track; communicatively coupled to a wireless mesh communication network
Hilleary teaches that a predefined protected area (zone) including a section of railroad track is established by arranging sensor node devices 202 along the track section, and that the nodes collectively define a wireless mesh network; the sensor nodes are mountable to railroad ties (track-associated) and communicate via transmitter/receiver elements. This corresponds to defining a detection zone by the detector arrangement/configuration and the detector being track-associated and mesh-coupled.
Detecting, by the train position detector, a localized position of a train traveling on the railway track during a shove move
Hilleary teaches detecting presence and deriving location/speed/heading information of a locomotive/railroad car within the predefined protected area via contiguous node detections, in the context of safe switching operations. This meets detecting a localized position on the track during shove/switching movements.
Generating a detection signal indicative of the localized position when the train approaches a pre-defined buffer zone
Hilleary teaches node-triggered communications regarding a sensed car 104 from sensor nodes 202, and the protected area/zone functions as the pre-defined buffer zone; detection signals are generated when the train enters/approaches that protected zone (as it progressively moves through the protected areas).
Communicating the detection signal to an onboard alert device via the wireless mesh; onboard alert device generates onboard alarm
Roberts teaches an onboard train display device 120 associated with the locomotive, including audible alarm/horn 124 and display 122, and teaches sending warnings/alarms to the locomotive operator based on detected unsafe conditions. Integrating Roberts’ onboard device into Hilleary’s mesh-based detection zone reporting yields communicating the detection signal via the mesh to the onboard device and generating an onboard alarm in response.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 16)
It would have been obvious to perform the method steps by combining Hilleary’s defined protected-zone mesh detection approach with Roberts’ onboard warning/alarm interface because both references address rail yard safety during train movements; routing zone-entry (buffer zone) detection signals to an onboard alarm provides the predictable benefit of immediate operator awareness and response during shove operations, improving safety using known components for known purposes.
Ref. 1: [0051]-[0053] (define zone; detect presence; generate/propagate via mesh), [0055]-[0059] (detection + communication), [0070]-[0074] (mesh communications), [0077] (tracking). Ref. 2: [0029] (stepwise operation; detect unsafe situation; communicate to operator device), [0025]-[0027] (warning generation on operator device). Ref. 3: [0021]-[0024] (multi-channel communications/failover).
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 17 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The method of claim 16, further comprising communicating, by the train position detector, the detection signal to at least one personal alert device communicatively coupled to the wireless mesh communication network, wherein the personal alert device generates a personal alarm in response to the communicated detection signal.
ANALYSIS
Claim 17 includes the limitations of claim 16 and further adds communicating the detection signal to a personal alert device that generates a personal alarm.
Roberts teaches a portable crew safety device (emergency action device 300) used by crew members on the ground during rail operations to address unsafe movement conditions, evidencing a personal device in the rail yard safety system context that communicates with locomotive equipment. Adapting/using such a personal device to receive the same detection signal (from Hilleary’s mesh detectors) and output an alarm is consistent with Roberts’ teaching of providing crew-level safety devices and with Hilleary’s wireless distribution of detection information across a mesh network.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 17)
It would have been obvious to communicate detection signals to a portable personal device because Roberts teaches portable crew safety devices in rail operations; extending Hilleary’s detection-signal dissemination to such personal devices predictably increases safety by warning personnel who are not in the locomotive cab during shove moves.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 18 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The method of claim 17, wherein the train position detector, the onboard alert device, and the personal alert device comprise nodes on the wireless mesh communication network.
ANALYSIS
Claim 18 includes the limitations of claim 17 (and thus claim 16) and requires the detector, onboard device, and personal device are mesh nodes.
As addressed for claim 3: Hilleary teaches sensor nodes 202 as mesh nodes; Roberts teaches onboard device 120 with radio communication and portable device 300 with transmitter communication. Implementing these as mesh nodes in Hilleary’s mesh architecture is a predictable network configuration consistent with the references’ teachings.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 18)
It would have been obvious to configure the detector, onboard device, and personal device as mesh nodes to enable flexible multi-hop routing and redundancy in the yard, consistent with Hilleary’s mesh architecture and Roberts’ communicating onboard/personal safety devices.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 19 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The method of claim 16, further comprising positioning the train position detector at an end of the railway track, and wherein detecting the localized position of the train includes detecting when said train approaches the train position detector.
ANALYSIS
Claim 19 includes the limitations of claim 16 and adds placing the detector at an end of the track and detecting when the train approaches.
As addressed for claim 6: Hilleary teaches that protected zones/sections of track are definable and installable by arranging sensor nodes 202 along selected track sections for switching operations; it would have been obvious to define such a zone at the end of a track and position at least one detector node 202 at/near that end to detect approaching train movement into that end-of-track zone, producing localized position detection as the train approaches that detector location.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 19)
It would have been obvious to position the detector at the end of a track because the end-of-track is a known critical location for preventing overrun incidents during shove moves, and Hilleary’s system is expressly configurable to define monitored/protected track sections; selecting the end-of-track as the monitored section yields predictable safety benefits.
──────────────────────────────────────── CLAIM 20 (REJECTION BASIS: REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2) ────────────────────────────────────────
The method of claim 16, further comprising providing, by the train position detector, real-time position information for the train traveling within the detection zone.
ANALYSIS
Claim 20 includes the limitations of claim 16 and further adds providing real-time position information for the train within the detection zone.
Hilleary teaches sensing/deriving location/speed/heading information for a moving object within the predefined protected area based on contiguous node detections as the object moves through the zone, with detection information communicated in the system as the movement occurs, which constitutes real-time (or near real-time) position information within the detection zone.
Roberts further supports real-time operator-facing reporting by teaching display of separation distances and speed on LCD 122 with alarms based on distance thresholds, reinforcing real-time position/proximity reporting concepts used to drive warnings.
MOTIVATION / RATIONALE (CLAIM 20)
It would have been obvious to provide real-time position information within the detection zone because Hilleary already derives movement/location information as the train progresses through the protected area, and Roberts shows the known benefit of real-time displayed distances/speed for safety warnings; providing such information predictably improves operator decision-making during shove operations.
────────────────────────────────────────
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613