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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2019/0263432 A1) (hereinafter Carlson ‘432) in view of Carlson et al. (US 2015/0060608 A1) (hereinafter Carlson ‘608).
Referring to Claim 1: Carlson ‘432 teaches a railroad management system comprising:
a plurality of first wireless terminals (1130) provided corresponding to a plurality of tracks (Fig. 11) (Para. [0122]), and each installed at
a second wireless terminal (1120) installed at an end of a train (Fig. 11), and configured to perform communication with the first wireless terminals using an ultra-wide band wireless signal (Para. [00123]);
distance estimation circuitry to estimate a distance between each of the plurality of first wireless terminals and the second wireless terminal using the ultra-wide band wireless signal (Para. [0062] and [0081]); and
track sensing circuitry (1004) to sense a track that the train is entering based on an estimation result from the distance estimation circuitry (Para. [0114-0116]), wherein
each of the first wireless terminals (1130) transmits the ultra-wide band wireless signal including a signal detection signal different for each wireless terminal of the corresponding track, and detects the ultra-wide band wireless signal received using the signal detection signal different for each wireless terminal of the corresponding track (Para. [0062]),
each of a plurality of the second wireless terminals (1120) transmits the ultra-wide band wireless signal including the signal detection signal different for each wireless terminal of the train (1110) equipped with the second wireless terminal, and detects the ultra-wide band wireless signal received using the signal detection signal different for each wireless terminal of the train equipped with the second wireless terminal (Para. [0062]) (Fig. 11), and
Carlson ‘432 teaches spaced UWB wayside units (1130) (Para. [0121-0123]) (Fig. 11) mounted within stations, that correspond to the end of the line, to ensure proper train alignment and door control (Para. [0065]), but does not specifically teach that the first wireless terminals are installed at an end of a platform, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Carlson ‘432 to locate the UWB wayside units at an end of the platform in order to perform precision measurements relative to the platform ends during train berthing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Carlson ‘432 teaches that the UWB wayside units (1130) transmit a detection signal with a different ID number for teach wayside unit (Para. [0062]), but does not specifically teach a signal different for each route or that the second wireless terminal uses an identical signal with that different/unique route information. While Carlson ‘432 teaches four different mechanisms for identifying the specific track occupied by the train (Para. [0122-0123]), Carlson ‘432 fails to specifically teach transmitting the different route signals, as claimed. However, Carlson ‘608 teaches rail vehicle signal enforcement and separation control, wherein “[i]n addition to determining range information, the UWB network may be used to communicate data, such as: the VMCS's unique ID, a signal indication, a track number, a track direction, the vehicle speed, the vehicle direction of travel, or GPS information (position information and/or GPS clock value)” (emphasis added) (Para. [0132]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson ‘432 to transmit UWB signals communicating additional different/unique route information, such as the track number taught by Carlson ‘432, in order to use UWB signals to identify the specific track (i.e., route) occupied by the train, in addition to determining range information, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 4: Carlson ‘432 teaches a railroad management system, wherein the second wireless terminal (1120) (Fig. 11) includes the distance estimation circuitry and the track sensing circuitry (300) (Fig. 3) (Para. [0041-0042]).
Referring to Claim 5: Carlson ‘432 teaches a railroad management system, wherein the first wireless terminal (1130) (Fig. 11) includes the distance estimation circuitry and the track sensing circuitry (500) (Fig. 5B) (Para. [0049]).
Referring to Claim 6: Carlson ‘432 teaches a railroad management system, wherein the first wireless terminal (1130, 1014) (Fig. 10) includes the distance estimation circuitry (500) (Fig. 5B) (Para. [0049]), the railroad management system (1004) further includes a communication terminal (1014) including the track sensing circuitry (1008, 1018) (Fig. 10), and the communication terminal collects the estimation result from the first wireless terminal, and senses a track that the train is entering based on the estimation result collected (Para. [0122-0123]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson ‘432 in view of Carlson ‘608 and Fiquet (US 2021/0016812 A1).
Referring to Claim 7: Carlson ‘432 teaches stop instruction circuitry to output a stop instruction for the train when a train has failed (e.g., an unhealthy or non-communicating train) (Para. [0146]) and also teaches using vital information from a solid-state interlocking controller (Para. [0114] and [0143]), but does not specifically teach outputting a stop instruction when a track that the train is scheduled to enter is different from a track sensed by the track sensing circuitry. However, Fiquet teaches a train control system and train control method including virtual train stop, wherein “track circuits can be used to detect presence or absence of a train on the railroad tracks,” (Para. [0019]) and that the solid state interlocking (SSI) is equipped with automatic trip stop devices (Para. [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson ‘432 to use stop instruction circuitry to output a stop instruction for the train when a track that the train is scheduled to enter is different from a track sensed by the track sensing circuitry, such as the track circuits taught by Fiquet, in order to allow the solid state interlocking controller to stop the train when an unsafe track condition is sensed, using conventional track circuits, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson ‘432 in view of Carlson ‘608 and Hamada et al. (US 2019/0031218 A1).
Referring to Claim 8: Carlson ‘432 teaches that “[a]t stations, the system may perform berthing control (ensuring proper alignment of the train at a station), integrating with door controls” (Para. [0065]), but does not specifically teach a platform gate including a plurality of platform doors; stop determination circuitry to determine whether the train has stopped based on the estimation result; and door opening/closing control circuitry to control opening and closing of the platform doors based on a determination result from the stop determination circuitry. However, Hamada teaches a train information management device and door control system, comprising a platform gate including a plurality of platform doors (12a-12h) (Fig. 1); stop determination circuitry to determine whether the train has stopped based on the estimation result (step S5) (Para. [0044]) (Fig. 3); and door opening/closing control circuitry (10) to control opening and closing of the platform doors based on a determination result from the stop determination circuitry (step S9) (Para. [0048]) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson ‘432 to use platform gates, stop determination circuitry and door control circuitry to automatically open and close platform doors, as taught by Hamada, in order to automate and safely integrate platform door controls with the positioning system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Carlson ‘432 teaches that “PTCS-2 systems may be configured for supporting train control initialization: consist length and configuration” (Para. [0090]), but does not specifically teach train length estimation circuitry to estimate a length of the train based on the estimation result, wherein the door opening/closing control circuitry selects the platform doors to be opened and closed among the plurality of platform doors based on the length of the train estimated. However, Hamada teaches a train information management device and door control system, comprising train length estimation circuitry (20) to estimate a length of the train and send that information to the platform door control device (Para. [0062]), wherein the door opening/closing control circuitry selects the platform doors to be opened and closed among the plurality of platform doors based on the length of the train estimated (Para. [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson ‘432 to use train length determination circuitry, as taught by Hamada, in order to automate and safely integrate platform door controls with the positioning system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 10-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, including Carlson ‘432, fails to teach the combination of limitations including the specific locations of the first and second wireless terminals and the signal detection usage, as claimed. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the prior art in this specific manner, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 10 and depending claim 11, the prior art, including Carlson ‘432, fails to teach the combination of limitations including third and fourth wireless terminals placed at the platform and train doors, respectively, as recited in claim 10. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the prior art in this specific manner, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 12 and depending claim 13, the prior art, including Carlson ‘432, fails to teach the combination of limitations including the communication terminal having the stop determination circuitry to determine whether the train has stopped based on the estimation result collected from the first wireless terminal, as recited in claim 12. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the prior art in this specific manner, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art, including Carlson ‘432, fails to teach the combination of limitations including a platform gate including a plurality of platform doors; a ground wireless device provided on the platform gate; and an on-board wireless device provided on the train and connectable to the second wireless terminal, wherein the on-board wireless device gives an instruction to open doors of the train in accordance with a stop timing of the train provided from the second wireless terminal, as recited in claim 14. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the prior art in this specific manner, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 15 and depending claims 16-18, the prior art, including Carlson ‘432, fails to teach the combination of limitations including that the camera wireless device selects a monitoring video to be transmitted to the on-board wireless device based on the track sensed by the track sensing circuitry, and transmits the monitoring video selected to the on-board wireless device, as recited in claim 15. Using a video camera to automatically open doors at train platforms is known (e.g., DE 102004044204 A1, see attached machine translation, abstract). However, Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the prior art in this specific manner, integrating a camera system with UWB wireless terminals as claimed, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 19 and depending claim 20, the prior art, including Carlson ‘432, fails to teach the combination of limitations including that the plurality of monitoring cameras and the core server, as recited in claim 19. Using a video camera to automatically open doors at train platforms is known (e.g., DE 102004044204 A1, see attached machine translation, abstract). However, Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the prior art in this specific manner, integrating a camera system and core server with UWB wireless terminals as claimed, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights