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 .
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 1-5, 7-9, and 13-17 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.
The phrase “detecting the crossing of a train passed the location” (claims 1, 7, and 14) renders the scope unclear. As written, “passed” is a past-tense verb which conflicts grammatically with “detecting the crossing,” and leaves reasonable uncertainty as to whether the limitation requires (i) detection of a crossing event as the train moves past the location, or (ii) detection only after the train has already passed the location, and further leaves unclear the spatial relationship intended by “passed the location.” Accordingly, the metes and bounds are not reasonably certain. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014); In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
CLAIMS 4-5 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 112(b) AS INDEFINITE
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “operates autonomously of a CBTC system to provide at least one degraded mode of operation during CBTC failure” and further recites “a failure in said train control installation has no impact on normal CBTC operation.”
These recitations are indefinite because they are primarily result-oriented and do not provide reasonably certain boundaries as to what constitutes (i) “autonomously of a CBTC system,” (ii) “at least one degraded mode of operation,” and (iii) “no impact on normal CBTC operation.” For example, it is unclear whether “autonomously” excludes any communication/interface with CBTC components, or instead permits communication but requires independent control authority; and it is unclear whether “no impact” means no interruption, no safety impact, no effect on availability, or some other metric. Accordingly, the scope is not reasonably certain. See Nautilus; In re Packard.
CLAIMS 13 AND 17 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 112(b) AS INDEFINITE
Claim(s) 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 17 recite that the “movement authority limit is transmitted to the approaching train via a transponder.” The claims fail to specify which transponder performs the transmission and its location/role in the system (e.g., a wayside active transponder transmitting control data to the train, versus a train-mounted tag/transponder providing identification data, or a passive track transponder). Without clarifying the transmitting element, the scope of the transmission pathway is not reasonably certain. See Nautilus; In re Packard.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) NOTE (FOR CLAIM INTERPRETATION; NOT A REJECTION)
Claim 1 and claim 18 include “means for …” limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). During prior art application, each such limitation will be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. (No 112(f) indefiniteness rejection is made here because the specification appears to disclose specific hardware modules (e.g., axle counter, transponder reader/antenna, processor, radio/data communication module, active transponder) that are plausibly linked to the claimed functions.)
REFERENCES RELIED UPON
Reference 1 (“Liu”): US 2016/0200327 A1
Reference 2 (“Graham”): US 2010/0063656 A1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Liu (Reference 1).
CLAIM 4 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1 (Liu))
A train control installation that operates autonomously of a CBTC system to provide at least one degraded mode of operation during CBTC failure, wherein the train control installation employs signal equipment to monitor the movements of trains and wherein a failure in said train control installation has no impact on normal CBTC operation.
ANALYSIS
A. “A train control installation” Liu discloses a train control installation/system architecture including both on-board equipment (e.g., on-board control/VOBC/OBE elements) and ground/wayside equipment (e.g., ZC, DSU, DCS, CI, RBC/TCC components depending on the described configuration). This constitutes a “train control installation” because it is a coordinated set of train control subsystems distributed between wayside and on-board equipment to supervise train movement and enforce safety constraints (e.g., speed, stopping point, movement authority).
B. “that operates autonomously of a CBTC system” Liu discloses configurations in which a backup train control subsystem operates independently of (i.e., autonomously of) the primary CBTC/CTCS-3-type system. In particular, Liu describes CTCS-3 (a radio-based continuous control architecture employing RBC and GSM-R style communications) and also describes CTCS-2 as an independent backup system (i.e., not dependent on CTCS-3 for its functioning). “Independent” and “backup system” operation is consistent with operating “autonomously” of the primary CBTC system because the backup installation is not required to rely on the CBTC subsystem’s normal operating functions to provide train movement supervision/authority in its own mode.
C. “to provide at least one degraded mode of operation during CBTC failure” Liu’s disclosure of an independent backup system (e.g., CTCS-2 functioning as backup to CTCS-3) teaches providing an alternate/degraded operational mode when the primary CBTC/CTCS-3-type continuous system is unavailable or fails. A “degraded mode” in train control is a mode of reduced functionality or reduced capacity operation that still maintains safe train separation, such as using fixed-block / intermittent / track-circuit-based supervision when moving-block CBTC functions are unavailable. Liu’s explicit discussion of backup mode operation is a direct teaching of at least one degraded mode during primary system failure.
D. “wherein the train control installation employs signal equipment to monitor the movements of trains” Liu teaches train monitoring using signal equipment/wayside detection and positioning infrastructure, including (by way of non-limiting examples from Liu’s disclosed implementations) track circuits, balise/transponder localization beacons, and axle counter positioning / axle counter evaluation units used in signal equipment rooms. Such signal equipment monitors train movement by detecting train presence or passage at known locations and by providing train position inputs used by the control system (e.g., ZC/RBC) to track train movement.
E. “and wherein a failure in said train control installation has no impact on normal CBTC operation” Liu’s architecture teaches functional separation between the normal primary CBTC/CTCS-3-type continuous control system and the independent backup installation (e.g., CTCS-2). Because the backup installation is independent, failure of the backup installation does not prevent the primary CBTC system from operating normally when the CBTC system itself is available. In other words, the backup’s failure does not alter the primary CBTC’s normal operating behavior, because the primary CBTC does not require the backup installation for its normal mode of operation.
Accordingly, Liu discloses each and every limitation of claim 4, and claim 4 is anticipated by Liu (Reference 1).
CLAIM 5 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1 (Liu))
The train control installation of claim 4, wherein the signal equipment includes at least one of an axle counter and a transponder reader.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control installation of claim 4” As established above for claim 4, Liu discloses a train control installation that includes a primary CBTC/CTCS-3-type system and an independent backup/degraded mode installation employing signal equipment.
B. “wherein the signal equipment includes at least one of an axle counter and a transponder reader” Liu teaches signal equipment for monitoring train movement including:
Axle counter positioning / axle counter evaluation units (signal-equipment-room-based detection/evaluation) used to detect train presence/passage and support train location/occupancy determination; and
Transponder/balise-based localization beacons and corresponding transponder reading/receiving functionality (e.g., balise information receiving modules and/or transponder-based train positioning inputs) used to obtain location/identity information.
Because Liu discloses signal equipment including at least one of an axle counter and transponder reading/receiving functionality in the disclosed train monitoring and positioning subsystems, claim 5 is anticipated by Liu (Reference 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Reference 1) in view of Graham (Reference 2).
In the following analyses, Liu is relied upon as the primary reference for CBTC/wayside movement authority generation, zone controller communications, axle counter/transponder train detection/positioning, and backup/degraded-mode signaling architecture. Graham is relied upon as a secondary reference for fixed-block/wayside signal S association with track sections (blocks/sections/circuits of track T), and for signal-aspect-based authority/enforcement (including automatic braking/enforcement via system 10, on-board control system 18, and brake interface 20), and for exemplary communications of signal/authority information via wayside signal S, rails of track T, wireless links, and/or central dispatch system CD.
CLAIM 1 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices, wherein each wayside signal control device is associated with a track section, wherein each wayside signal control device comprises: means for detecting the crossing of a train passed the location of the wayside signal control device, means for identifying data associated with detected train, means for exchanging said data associated with detected train with adjacent wayside signal control devices, and means for generating and communicating a movement authority limit to a train that is approaching its location.
ANALYSIS
A. “A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices” Liu discloses a train control system including wayside/ground equipment such as Zone Controllers (ZC) and associated communication subsystems (DCS, wayside wireless equipment) that together function as wayside control entities for train movement supervision and authority generation. In operational deployments, multiple ZCs are provided for multiple control regions along a line (i.e., a plurality of wayside control devices distributed along the railway). Graham further teaches a track network TN with tracks T and multiple wayside signals S positioned along the track T. Those wayside signals S are control points that convey authority/constraints to trains TR (signal aspect/indication), and thus constitute “wayside signal control” elements in a train control system.
Accordingly, the combination teaches a train control system including a plurality of wayside signal control devices (Liu’s ZCs and/or Graham’s wayside signals S with associated control interfaces).
B. “wherein each wayside signal control device is associated with a track section” Graham expressly teaches that wayside signals S are associated with specific portions of track T, commonly referred to as blocks/sections/circuits, and that the associated signal S is positioned at the beginning of the block and provides information/aspects/indications related to the upcoming section of track T (i.e., associated track section). Liu similarly teaches that a ZC has a “control range” and generates movement authority within that control range, i.e., associated track section/zone. Therefore, each wayside control device is associated with a defined track section (block/zone).
C. “wherein each wayside signal control device comprises: means for detecting the crossing of a train passed the location of the wayside signal control device” Liu teaches train detection/positioning using trackside devices such as axle counter positioning (ACE) and transponder/balise localization beacons. These positioners inherently detect a train’s passage/crossing at a known location (e.g., an axle counter location detecting axles passing; a balise location where on-board equipment receives the balise telegram as the train passes). Graham teaches determining train position relative to wayside signals S using positioning system 16 and track database 12 containing the location of wayside signals S, enabling the system (system 10) to determine when the train TR reaches/passes a given signal location (the boundary of a track section).
Thus, the combined teachings provide structure and functionality corresponding to a “means for detecting the crossing of a train passed the location” of a wayside control device (e.g., using axle counters/transponders per Liu and/or position determination relative to signal locations per Graham).
D. “means for identifying data associated with detected train” Liu teaches that train positioning can involve transponder/balise messages including an identification number, and that train location reports (including train position and speed) are communicated to the wayside ZC. Such information inherently includes “data associated with” the detected train (e.g., train identifier, position, speed, and other status data). Graham teaches that track database 12 includes train data (relating to train TR and operating parameters) and that system 10 receives/uses such train data and other system data. This is additional teaching that train-associated data is identified/available for control decisions.
Accordingly, the combination teaches identifying data associated with a detected train.
E. “means for exchanging said data associated with detected train with adjacent wayside signal control devices” Liu teaches that a Data Communication System (DCS) ensures communication between subsystems, including Zone Controller (ZC) to Zone Controller (ZC) communications and control exchanges between adjacent control centers. Such communications are used to coordinate train control across adjacent zones/sections. Exchanging train-related data between adjacent wayside controllers is a predictable and conventional function in distributed train control (handoff/coordination at zone boundaries). Graham additionally teaches communications among train control components via central dispatch system CD and/or wayside signal S communications over rails of track T or wireless. Such communications support exchange of operational data (including signal status and train-related information) among control elements associated with different track sections.
Thus, the combination teaches exchanging train data with “adjacent” wayside control devices (e.g., adjacent ZCs controlling adjacent track sections and/or adjacent wayside signals S associated with adjacent track blocks).
F. “means for generating and communicating a movement authority limit to a train that is approaching its location” Liu teaches that the ZC subsystem generates movement authority (MA) for a train within its control range and sends that MA via DCS to on-board control equipment (e.g., VOBC/OBE). Movement authority inherently includes a limit (e.g., endpoint/target distance/safety stopping point) defining how far the train is permitted to proceed. Graham teaches that wayside signals S convey signal aspects/indications that correspond to authority constraints governing whether the train may enter the upcoming block/section of track T. Graham further teaches that system 10 can automatically brake the train TR prior to encountering an upcoming signal S unless authorization/conditions indicate it is safe to proceed, thereby enforcing an authority boundary at/near the signal location (i.e., a movement authority limit at the signal boundary).
Therefore, the combination teaches generating and communicating a movement authority limit to an approaching train (movement authority generated by ZC/RBC per Liu and/or authority conveyed via wayside signal aspect and dispatch authorization per Graham).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu’s CBTC/CTCS movement-authority-based zone control (ZC, DCS, MA generation and transmission) with Graham’s wayside-signal-based fixed-block/section association and signal-aspect enforcement (signals S associated with blocks of track T; system 10 enforcing compliance) to improve interoperability between moving-authority systems and conventional wayside signaling, and to provide redundant/compatible authority communication and enforcement at track-section boundaries. The combination is in the same field (railway train control), uses known elements performing known functions (authority generation, authority communication, train detection/positioning, enforcement), and yields predictable safety and operational benefits (clear authority limits at block/zone boundaries and robust enforcement).
CLAIM 2 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 1, wherein the means for detecting train crossing includes at least one of a transponder reader and an axle counter.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 1” As shown in the analysis of claim 1, Liu in view of Graham teaches a train control system having wayside control entities associated with track sections and capable of train detection, train data identification, inter-device data exchange, and movement authority limit generation/communication.
B. “wherein the means for detecting train crossing includes at least one of a transponder reader and an axle counter” Liu teaches train detection/positioning using axle counter positioning (ACE) and transponder/balise localization beacons. An axle counter (ACE) detects the passage of the train by counting axles crossing the detection point. A transponder/balise system includes transponder-reading/receiving functionality (e.g., balise information receiving module and transponder antenna cooperating with trackside balise) that detects train passage at the balise location by receiving the balise telegram as the train passes. Either one satisfies “at least one of” the listed options. Graham further supports detection of train passage at signal locations using positioning system 16 and track database 12 that stores the location of wayside signals S, enabling the system to determine crossing/passage relative to signal/control locations.
Accordingly, the combined teachings satisfy the additional limitation of claim 2.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 2)
It would have been obvious to implement the “means for detecting train crossing” of the claim 1 system using at least one of a transponder reader and an axle counter as taught by Liu because these are well-established, predictable, and safety-accepted train detection/positioning technologies that provide reliable train passage detection at known locations. Incorporating such detectors into a wayside control device associated with a track section improves the accuracy and integrity of occupancy and authority-limit determination, thereby improving safety and operational robustness.
CLAIM 3 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 1, wherein the means for exchanging said data includes at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 1” As shown for claim 1, Liu in view of Graham teaches a train control system with wayside control entities exchanging train data and coordinating movement authority.
B. “wherein the means for exchanging said data includes at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module” Liu teaches communications infrastructure including a Data Communication System (DCS) and wireless communication components (e.g., on-board radio unit, wayside wireless equipment, and associated management/access equipment). These correspond to:
A “radio communication module” (wireless radio link equipment used to communicate between wayside and train and/or between subsystems); and/or
A “data communication module” (DCS providing data communications among subsystems including ZC-to-ZC and ZC-to-train communications). Graham likewise teaches receiving signal/authority data via receiver 14, where data can be communicated wirelessly and/or through rails of track T and/or via central dispatch CD, which further supports the use of radio/data communications modules.
Thus, the combination teaches the claimed “means for exchanging” including at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 3)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the train-data exchange of claim 1 using at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module as taught by Liu (and consistent with Graham’s communications approaches) because radio/data communications are the predictable, widely-used mechanisms for exchanging train identity/position/authority information between wayside controllers and between wayside and train. Doing so yields the expected result of timely and reliable data exchange needed for safe movement authority generation, zone handoff, and interlocking coordination.
CLAIM 6 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices, wherein each wayside signal control device has an associated track section, wherein a wayside signal control device tracks data of trains passing its location, wherein a wayside signal control device communicates with adjacent wayside signal control devices, and wherein a wayside signal control device controls the movement of an approaching train into its associated section of track.
ANALYSIS
A. “A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices” As explained for claim 1, Liu teaches multiple zone control entities (ZCs) distributed along a line; Graham teaches multiple wayside signals S along track T. Together, they teach a plurality of wayside signal control devices in a train control system.
B. “wherein each wayside signal control device has an associated track section” Graham teaches each wayside signal S is positioned at the beginning of and associated with a block/section/circuit of track T. Liu teaches each ZC controls a control range (zone/section). Thus, each wayside device is associated with a track section.
C. “wherein a wayside signal control device tracks data of trains passing its location” Liu teaches that trains send location reports (e.g., position and speed) to the wayside ZC; Liu also teaches use of trackside positioners (balise/transponder, axle counter) that detect passage at known locations. The ZC uses this information to track train movement within its control range. Tracking train data (position, speed, presence/passage events) is therefore taught. Graham supports that train movement relative to a signal S boundary is tracked using position data (positioning system 16) and track database 12 containing the location of wayside signals S.
D. “wherein a wayside signal control device communicates with adjacent wayside signal control devices” Liu teaches DCS communications between ZCs (ZC-to-ZC) and control exchanges between adjacent control centers, enabling coordination at boundaries. This is direct teaching of communication with adjacent wayside controllers. Graham’s signal/dispatch communications further support inter-device communications.
E. “and wherein a wayside signal control device controls the movement of an approaching train into its associated section of track” Liu teaches that ZC generates movement authority (MA) for trains in its control range and transmits MA to on-board control equipment (VOBC/OBE), thereby controlling movement of an approaching train into the controlled section by granting/limiting authority. Graham teaches that the wayside signal S governs entry into the upcoming block/section of track T by its aspect/indication, and system 10 can enforce stopping prior to the signal S unless authorized to proceed. This is controlling movement into the associated track section.
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over Liu in view of Graham.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 6)
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Liu’s zone-based movement authority control with Graham’s fixed-block wayside signal S association and enforcement because railway systems commonly integrate or interoperate between CBTC/moving-authority control and conventional signaled territory. Combining these known approaches provides predictable advantages: improved safety through redundant authority enforcement, easier retrofit compatibility with existing block signals, and reliable handoff/coordination between adjacent control sections via established communications.
CLAIM 7 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices, wherein a signal control device comprises: an axle counter that detects the crossing of a train passed the wayside signal control device location and determines the number of axles in that train, at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module for exchanging data associated with trains that passed the location of the wayside signal control device with adjacent wayside signal control devices, and a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that generates and transmits a movement authority limit to a train approaching the wayside signal control device location.
ANALYSIS
A. “A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices” As explained for claim 1 and claim 6, Liu teaches multiple zone controllers (ZC) and associated wayside subsystems distributed along a line, and Graham teaches multiple wayside signals S associated with blocks along track T. Thus, a plurality of wayside signal control devices is taught.
B. “wherein a signal control device comprises: an axle counter that detects the crossing of a train passed the wayside signal control device location” Liu teaches axle counter positioning (ACE) and axle counter evaluation units used in signal equipment to detect train movement/passage at a particular location. An axle counter necessarily detects passage of a train across the axle counter’s detection point by detecting/counting axles as they cross, thereby detecting “crossing of a train past” that location.
C. “and determines the number of axles in that train” An axle counter’s core function is to count axles passing the detection point. Therefore, using Liu’s axle counter (ACE) inherently determines the number of axles that pass (i.e., the number of axles in the passing train consist as detected at that point), which corresponds to “determines the number of axles in that train” as the train passes the axle counter location.
D. “at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module for exchanging data associated with trains that passed the location of the wayside signal control device with adjacent wayside signal control devices” Liu teaches:
Wireless communication components (on-board radio unit, wayside wireless equipment, and related access/management equipment), which correspond to a “radio communication module”; and
A Data Communication System (DCS) that ensures communication between subsystems including ZC-to-ZC communications, which corresponds to a “data communication module.” These communications are used to exchange train-related data among adjacent controllers (e.g., adjacent ZCs and adjacent control centers) for coordination/handoff across control ranges.
E. “and a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that generates and transmits a movement authority limit to a train approaching the wayside signal control device location” Liu teaches a ZC subsystem that receives train position/speed/status information and generates movement authority (MA) and transmits the MA via DCS to on-board train control equipment (VOBC/OBE). The ZC is a processor-controlled subsystem executing control logic (i.e., a computer program stored in memory/processor system). The generated MA inherently has a limit (target distance / authority endpoint). Transmitting that authority to a train as it approaches the controlled location (e.g., zone boundary or safety stopping point) corresponds to generating and transmitting a movement authority limit to an approaching train. Graham further teaches processor-based train control logic (on-board control system 18) using stored data (track database 12) to enforce stop/authority at upcoming signals S, reinforcing that movement authority/limits are computed and enforced via programmed control logic relative to wayside control points.
Accordingly, the combination teaches each element of claim 7.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 7)
It would have been obvious to implement a wayside “signal control device” having an axle counter, communications module(s), and processor executing a program to generate/transmit movement authority limits because Liu already teaches these functional building blocks in train control (axle counters for passage detection, DCS/wireless for communications, ZC computation for MA generation). Incorporating (or packaging) these known elements into a single wayside control device associated with a control point/section (as reinforced by Graham’s block-associated wayside signaling) provides predictable results: reduced latency, simplified wiring/interfaces, and improved integrity of authority computation using direct detection inputs and adjacent-controller coordination.
CLAIM 8 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 7, wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises a transponder reader.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 7” As established above, Liu in view of Graham teaches a train control system having wayside devices that detect train passage (axle counter), exchange train-related data via DCS/radio modules, and generate/transmit movement authority limits via processor-based control logic.
B. “wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises a transponder reader” Liu teaches transponder/balise-based train positioning in which transponder/balise messages (including identification numbers and/or location-related information) are used to determine train position. Such systems necessarily include transponder reading/receiving functionality (e.g., balise information receiving modules/transponder antenna cooperating with the transponder/balise) to obtain the transponder telegram/data. Graham teaches receiver 14 used to obtain signal/authority data (including wirelessly) and track database 12 containing signal locations, showing that train control systems employ receivers/readers to obtain external identification/position/authority-related information.
Therefore, the combination teaches providing a transponder reader as an additional component in the wayside control device, consistent with transponder-based detection/positioning.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 8)
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a transponder reader in the wayside control device of claim 7 to enhance train identification and/or location certainty by adding an additional, independent detection/positioning channel (transponder/balise) alongside axle counting. This provides predictable safety and reliability benefits, including improved verification of train passage events and improved integrity of movement authority limit calculations (e.g., cross-checking axle-counter-based detection with transponder-based location updates).
CLAIM 9 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 7, wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises at least one of a wayside signal and an automatic train stop.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 7” As shown for claim 7, Liu in view of Graham teaches a train control system having wayside control devices with detection, communications, and programmed authority generation/transmission.
B. “wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises at least one of a wayside signal and an automatic train stop” Graham expressly teaches wayside signals S positioned along track T and associated with blocks/sections/circuits of track T. Thus, adding/including a “wayside signal” as part of the wayside signal control device is taught by Graham (wayside signal S and its role as a control point for the associated block). Graham also teaches automatic braking/enforcement via system 10 in which on-board control system 18, using signal aspect/authority information, commands brake interface 20 to enforce a complete stop of the train TR prior to encountering an upcoming signal S unless appropriate authority/conditions permit proceeding. This is an “automatic train stop” function because it automatically enforces stopping based on wayside signal/authority information. Liu likewise teaches automatic train protection concepts such as over-speed protection and emergency brake enforcement (including unconditional/conditional emergency stop messages), which correspond to automatic stopping based on safety control logic.
Accordingly, the combination teaches a wayside control device further comprising at least one of a wayside signal (Graham’s signal S) and an automatic train stop function (Graham’s enforcement via 18/20 and/or Liu’s ATP emergency stop functionality).
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 9)
It would have been obvious to include a wayside signal and/or automatic train stop functionality in the claim 7 wayside control device because integrating visual wayside indications (signals S) and automatic enforcement (automatic braking/stop commands) is a conventional and predictable approach to improving safety and human-factor robustness. Graham teaches the safety benefits of enforcing compliance with upcoming signal aspects (signals S) using programmed automatic braking (18/20). Incorporating these features into Liu’s authority-generation wayside system provides predictable improvements: clearer indication of authority limits to operators and automatic enforcement to prevent signal/authority violations.
CLAIM 10 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices, wherein a wayside signal control device tracks the number of trains operating in an associated track section, wherein each train is identified by a train signature that includes the number of axles in the train, and wherein a signal control device comprises: an axle counter for detecting the number of axles of a train passing its location, at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module for exchanging train signature data with adjacent signal control devices, a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program, a computer program segment that tracks the number of trains operating within said track section, and a computer program segment that generates and transmits a movement authority limit to an approaching train.
ANALYSIS
A. “A train control system that includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices” As explained in claims 1, 6, and 7, Liu teaches multiple ZCs/wayside control subsystems distributed along the railway, and Graham teaches multiple wayside signals S associated with track sections. Thus, the combined system includes a plurality of wayside signal control devices.
B. “wherein a wayside signal control device tracks the number of trains operating in an associated track section” Liu teaches that the ZC subsystem receives train location reports and train status data and generates movement authority within its control range. To generate movement authority safely, a ZC necessarily maintains knowledge of trains present within its controlled section (control range), including how many trains and their positions/speeds. This constitutes tracking the number of trains operating in the associated track section. Graham likewise teaches blocks/sections of track T with signals S governing entry, where block occupancy logic and train spacing is fundamental; while Graham focuses on on-board enforcement, its fixed-block system context reinforces that train control devices manage trains relative to track sections.
C. “wherein each train is identified by a train signature that includes the number of axles in the train” Liu teaches axle counter positioning/evaluation, which inherently produces axle count information for a train passing a detection point. Associating a detected axle count with the passing train provides a “signature” component that includes number of axles. Graham teaches track database 12 includes train data relating to the train TR and potentially other trains TR in the track network TN, demonstrating that the system maintains and uses train-identified data records. Combining Liu’s axle-count measurement with Graham’s train data management supports identifying a train using a signature that includes axle count.
D. “and wherein a signal control device comprises: an axle counter for detecting the number of axles of a train passing its location” As addressed for claim 7, Liu teaches axle counters (ACE) used for train detection/positioning. An axle counter detects and counts axles passing its location, thereby detecting the number of axles of a train passing its location.
E. “at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module for exchanging train signature data with adjacent signal control devices” Liu teaches DCS communications between ZCs and communications among adjacent control centers (e.g., adjacent SCCs), enabling exchange of train identity/position/status data to coordinate at boundaries. Such exchanged data can include train signature data such as axle count and/or train ID. Liu also teaches radio/wireless components (on-board radio unit and wayside wireless equipment), which provide radio communications. Graham teaches signal/authority communications via rails, wireless, and/or central dispatch system CD, showing that exchanging train-related control data across control devices is conventional.
F. “a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program” Liu’s ZC subsystem is a processor-based control subsystem executing programmed logic and utilizing stored data (databases, configuration, train status), which corresponds to a processor module executing a computer program from memory (computer-readable medium). Graham similarly teaches on-board control system 18 and track database 12 (stored data), reinforcing processor/memory programmed control architectures in this field.
G. “a computer program segment that tracks the number of trains operating within said track section” Liu’s ZC must maintain train status within its control range to compute safe movement authority, which includes tracking how many trains are present (and their positions). This is consistent with a computer program segment that tracks number of trains within the section.
H. “and a computer program segment that generates and transmits a movement authority limit to an approaching train” Liu expressly teaches generating movement authority (MA) and transmitting it through DCS to on-board control equipment (VOBC/OBE). The MA includes a limit (target distance/endpoint). This satisfies generating and transmitting a movement authority limit to an approaching train.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Liu in view of Graham.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 10)
It would have been obvious to track the number of trains within a track section and to identify trains using a signature including axle count because safe movement authority computation inherently depends on reliable occupancy and train identification. Liu already relies on train position reporting and wayside detection (including axle counters and transponder/balise positioning) for safe authority generation. Using axle count as part of a train “signature” is a predictable way to distinguish trains and verify passage/clearance, especially in environments with multiple trains and zone handoffs. Graham reinforces that train data is stored/managed (track database 12 includes train data), so incorporating axle-count signature data into exchanged train records would have been a straightforward and predictable enhancement for accuracy and safety.
CLAIM 11 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 10, wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises a transponder reader.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 10” As shown above, Liu in view of Graham teaches a system in which a wayside control device uses axle counting and communications to track trains in a track section, exchange train signature data, and generate/transmit movement authority limits.
B. “wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises a transponder reader” As addressed for claim 8, Liu teaches transponder/balise-based train positioning where transponder/balise telegrams are used and therefore transponder reading/receiving functionality exists within the train control system architecture (balise information receiving module/transponder antenna and related subsystems). Graham teaches receiver 14 for receiving external signal data and authority information, illustrating the use of receiver/reader components in train control. Therefore, the combination supports inclusion of a transponder reader in a wayside control device to read transponder/balise information used for train identification/position verification.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 11)
It would have been obvious to add a transponder reader to the claim 10 wayside signal control device to supplement axle-count-based signatures with transponder/balise identification or localization data. This provides predictable improvements in correctly associating a measured axle count with a specific train record (train signature) and improves reliability of train tracking within a track section, particularly across adjacent-device handoffs and in degraded/backup signaling modes.
CLAIM 12 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 10, wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises at least one of a wayside signal and an automatic train stop.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 10” As shown above, Liu in view of Graham teaches a train control system where wayside control devices track trains within track sections and generate/transmit movement authority limits.
B. “wherein a wayside signal control device further comprises at least one of a wayside signal and an automatic train stop” Graham teaches wayside signals S associated with track blocks/sections and positioned along track T. Graham also teaches automatic braking/enforcement via on-board control system 18 and brake interface 20 based on upcoming signal S aspects and authority, corresponding to automatic train stop functions. Liu teaches over-speed protection and emergency stop/brake enforcement consistent with ATP, which also corresponds to automatic stopping functions.
Therefore, the combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 12.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 12)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate a wayside signal and/or automatic train stop functionality into the claim 10 system to provide clear wayside indication of authority limits and to automatically enforce those limits, reducing dependence on operator compliance and reducing risk of authority violations. These are predictable safety and interoperability enhancements consistent with conventional railway signaling practice.
CLAIM 13 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The train control system of claim 10, wherein the movement authority limit is transmitted to the approaching train via a transponder.
ANALYSIS
A. “The train control system of claim 10” As established above, the claim 10 system includes a wayside control device generating and transmitting movement authority limits to an approaching train.
B. “wherein the movement authority limit is transmitted to the approaching train via a transponder” Liu teaches an intermittent ATC configuration in which a ground balise (a transponder/localizer beacon) transfers control data to the train, including at least permitted speed, target speed, and target distance. Target distance corresponds to an authority endpoint/limit (i.e., a movement authority limit) because it defines how far the train is permitted/authorized to proceed relative to a control point. Graham teaches communications of signal aspect/authority information via wayside signal S and communications channels, reinforcing that authority information can be communicated using wayside-to-train transmission mechanisms. Thus, transmitting the movement authority limit via a transponder/balise is taught by Liu in the same field of train control signaling.
Accordingly, the combination teaches the movement authority limit transmitted to the approaching train via a transponder.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 13)
It would have been obvious to transmit a movement authority limit via a transponder/balise in the claim 10 system because Liu teaches that intermittent ATC systems use balises to deliver target distance and speed constraints to trains in a reliable, location-specific manner. Using a transponder to transmit the authority limit is a predictable design choice that provides deterministic, localized delivery of the limit at known points, which is especially useful for degraded or mixed signaling environments and improves robustness against wireless network interruptions.
CLAIM 14 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
A signal control device that controls the movement of an approaching train into an associated absolute permissive block, comprising: an axle counter for detecting the crossing of a train passed its location, at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module for exchanging data with at least one of a similar signal control device, an interlocking control device and a zone controller, a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program, a computer program segment that tracks data associated with trains operating within said absolute permissive block, and a computer program segment that generates and transmits a movement authority limit to a train approaching its location.
ANALYSIS
A. “A signal control device that controls the movement of an approaching train into an associated absolute permissive block” Graham teaches operation in signaled territory with permissive signals S and absolute signals S, where a signal aspect/indication governs whether a train TR may proceed into the next block/portion of track T. Such a block/portion of track T associated with a signal S is an “absolute” or “permissive” block in railway signaling terminology, and the signal S controls entry into that block by providing “stop,” “stop and proceed,” “approach,” etc. indications. Liu teaches movement authority generation and transmission (MA) by wayside control subsystems (e.g., ZC/RBC/MAU functions) that control movement into a controlled region by granting an authority with a limit. In combination, a “signal control device” controls entry of an approaching train into an associated block (absolute/permissive) by determining occupancy/limits and issuing authority constraints consistent with railway block control.
B. “an axle counter for detecting the crossing of a train passed its location” Liu teaches axle counter positioning (ACE) and axle counter evaluation units used in wayside signaling equipment to detect train passage at known locations by counting axles. This satisfies the axle counter limitation.
C. “at least one of a radio communication module and a data communication module for exchanging data with at least one of a similar signal control device, an interlocking control device and a zone controller” Liu teaches a Data Communication System (DCS) ensuring communication between subsystems, including:
Zone Controller (ZC) communications with other Zone Controllers (ZC-to-ZC) (similar signal control devices);
ZC communications with interlocking subsystems (computer interlocking, CI) and ATS subsystems; and
Wireless communications via on-board radio unit and wayside wireless equipment (radio communication modules). Thus, Liu teaches exchanging data with at least one of a similar signal control device (another ZC), an interlocking control device (CI), and a zone controller (ZC) via radio/DCS communications.
D. “a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program” Liu’s ZC/wayside control subsystem is a processor-based controller executing software using stored program/data (i.e., computer-readable medium). Graham teaches programmable control logic (on-board control system 18) and stored data (track database 12), further evidencing programmed control in this art.
E. “a computer program segment that tracks data associated with trains operating within said absolute permissive block” Liu teaches that ZC receives train position reports and status information and maintains train status/position/speed information for trains within its control range. This constitutes tracking data associated with trains operating within a defined controlled section/block. Graham’s block-based signaling context reinforces that train control systems track train status relative to blocks/sections to determine when trains may proceed.
F. “and a computer program segment that generates and transmits a movement authority limit to a train approaching its location” Liu explicitly teaches generating movement authority (MA) by ZC and transmitting it through DCS to on-board control equipment (VOBC/OBE). Such MA includes an authority limit (target distance/endpoint). Graham teaches authority constraints communicated via wayside signal aspects and enforced via system 10 (18/20), reinforcing the concept of authority limit relative to a signal/block boundary.
Thus, claim 14 is unpatentable over Liu in view of Graham.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 14)
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Liu’s wayside MA generation/communications (ZC, DCS, CI coordination, axle counter detection) with Graham’s absolute/permissive block signaling framework (signals S associated with blocks of track T; enforcement at signal boundaries) because real-world rail networks often require both: (i) programmable authority generation and interlocking coordination; and (ii) compliance with established absolute/permissive block operating rules. Integrating these known approaches provides predictable safety and interoperability benefits, including reliable block entry control using axle counter-based occupancy detection, controller-to-controller/interlocking communications, and explicit movement authority limits for approaching trains.
CLAIM 15 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The signal control device as recited in claim 14 further comprising a transponder reader.
ANALYSIS
A. “The signal control device of claim 14” As shown above, Liu in view of Graham teaches a signal control device architecture that detects train passage via axle counter, exchanges data with ZC/CI/adjacent devices, tracks train data in a block, and generates/transmits movement authority limits.
B. “further comprising a transponder reader” Liu teaches transponder/balise-based train positioning and intermittent ATC balise transmissions used to deliver target distance/speed constraints. Such systems include transponder reading/receiving functionality to process balise/transponder telegrams (transponder reader capability in the overall control architecture). Graham teaches receiver 14 used to obtain externally transmitted signal/authority data, further supporting reader/receiver integration in train control systems.
Accordingly, the combination teaches inclusion of a transponder reader as an additional component.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 15)
It would have been obvious to add a transponder reader to the claim 14 signal control device to provide a second, independent mechanism for train localization and authority/limit delivery (e.g., balise-based target distance delivery) alongside axle counter detection. This predictable redundancy improves confidence in block occupancy determination and movement authority limit enforcement, particularly in absolute/permissive block territories where precise control-point localization is valuable.
CLAIM 16 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The signal control device as recited in claim 14 further comprising at least one of a wayside signal and an automatic train stop.
ANALYSIS
A. “The signal control device of claim 14” As shown above, the combination teaches a signal control device controlling entry into a block by detection, communications with ZC/CI, tracking train data, and issuing movement authority limits.
B. “further comprising at least one of a wayside signal and an automatic train stop” Graham teaches wayside signals S as the block-entry control points. Graham also teaches automatic braking/stop enforcement through on-board control system 18 and brake interface 20 based on signal aspect/authority information, corresponding to automatic train stop functions. Liu teaches automatic train protection elements including emergency stop/brake enforcement and overspeed protection, which correspond to automatic stop functions.
Thus, the combination teaches the additional limitation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 16)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include wayside signal indication and/or automatic train stop enforcement in the claim 14 device to provide both (i) a visible/standardized block-entry authority indication (wayside signal S) and (ii) automatic enforcement of authority limits to prevent block incursions. This is a predictable safety enhancement consistent with conventional railway practice and improves system robustness against human error.
CLAIM 17 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
The signal control device as recited in claim 14 wherein the movement authority limit is transmitted to the approaching train via a transponder.
ANALYSIS
A. “The signal control device of claim 14” As shown above, the combination teaches a signal control device that generates and transmits movement authority limits to approaching trains.
B. “wherein the movement authority limit is transmitted to the approaching train via a transponder” Liu teaches intermittent ATC using ground balise (transponder) transmissions that include target distance, which corresponds to a movement authority limit. Therefore, Liu teaches transponder-based transmission of the authority limit to an approaching train. Graham teaches signal/authority data communications via wayside signals S and communications paths, supporting authority transmission via wayside-to-train channels.
Accordingly, the combination teaches the movement authority limit transmitted via a transponder.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 17)
It would have been obvious to transmit the movement authority limit via a transponder/balise because Liu teaches that balises provide a reliable, location-bound method to convey target distance (authority endpoint) and speed constraints to the train. Using a transponder to transmit the limit provides predictable advantages: deterministic delivery at known points, improved robustness in degraded communications conditions, and simplified validation of authority limits at block boundaries.
CLAIM 18 (Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 (Liu) in view of Reference 2 (Graham))
A method for a wayside train control device that controls the movement of a train into an associated track section, wherein the device includes an axle counter to detect the movement of a train past its location, wherein the device includes means for communicating with trains and at least one of adjacent wayside train control devices, a zone controller and an interlocking control device, and wherein the device includes a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program to control the operation of the device, comprising the following steps: acquiring data related to trains passing its location, tracking the number of trains operating in said associated track section, exchanging said acquired train data with adjacent wayside train control devices, generating a movement authority limit for a train approaching its location, and transmitting said movement authority limit to the approaching train.
ANALYSIS
A. “A method for a wayside train control device that controls the movement of a train into an associated track section” Liu teaches wayside control subsystems (e.g., ZC) that control train movement into a defined control range/track section by generating and communicating movement authority. Graham teaches wayside signals S associated with blocks/sections of track T controlling entry to those sections via signal aspects and related enforcement. Thus, the combined teachings provide a method for a wayside control device controlling movement into an associated track section.
B. “wherein the device includes an axle counter to detect the movement of a train past its location” Liu teaches axle counter positioning (ACE) and axle counter evaluation units that detect train movement/passage at the axle counter location by counting axles.
C. “wherein the device includes means for communicating with trains and at least one of adjacent wayside train control devices, a zone controller and an interlocking control device” Liu teaches communications between wayside subsystems and trains via wireless (on-board radio unit and wayside wireless equipment) and via DCS; and Liu teaches DCS communications between ZC and ZC and between ZC and interlocking (CI). Thus, the device communicates with trains and with adjacent wayside devices and interlocking/zone controller elements. Graham teaches communications of signal/authority data via rails of track T, wirelessly, and/or via central dispatch CD, supporting the use of wayside-to-train communications mechanisms.
D. “wherein the device includes a processor module with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program to control the operation of the device” Liu’s ZC/wayside controller is a processor-based system executing programmed control logic using stored data. Graham likewise teaches programmed control logic (on-board control system 18) using stored data (track database 12).
E. Step: “acquiring data related to trains passing its location” Liu teaches acquiring train passage/location information via axle counters and transponder/balise positioning and via train location reports to ZC. This constitutes acquiring train-related data when a train passes known locations.
F. Step: “tracking the number of trains operating in said associated track section” Liu teaches ZC maintains status information for trains within its control range to generate movement authorities, which includes tracking the number of trains in the section and their positions/speeds.
G. Step: “exchanging said acquired train data with adjacent wayside train control devices” Liu teaches DCS communications enabling ZC-to-ZC exchange and coordination and control exchange between adjacent control centers. Exchanging acquired train data between adjacent controllers is inherent for zone boundary coordination and is explicitly supported by the DCS communications structure.
H. Step: “generating a movement authority limit for a train approaching its location” Liu teaches generating movement authority (MA) for a train and includes a limit/endpoint such as a safety stopping point/target distance. Graham teaches authority constraints at upcoming signals S controlling whether the train may enter the next block/track portion.
I. Step: “transmitting said movement authority limit to the approaching train” Liu teaches transmitting MA via DCS/wireless to on-board control equipment (VOBC/OBE) and, in intermittent ATC, transmitting target distance via balise (transponder). Graham teaches communicating signal aspect/authority information from wayside signals S to trains TR via rails/wireless/dispatch.
Therefore, the combined references teach the method steps of claim 18.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (CLAIM 18)
It would have been obvious to implement the claimed method steps using the combined teachings of Liu and Graham because the steps reflect the predictable operational workflow of a modern train control system: detect/train-position acquisition (axle counter/transponder), track occupancy/number of trains in section, exchange information with adjacent control domains and interlocking for safe handoff and routing, compute a movement authority limit, and communicate the authority to the approaching train. Liu already discloses this workflow in the context of ZC/MA generation and DCS communications, and Graham reinforces authority-limit enforcement at wayside signal-controlled block boundaries. The combination yields predictable, safety-driven results and reflects routine integration of known train control subsystems.
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