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 13-15 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Indefiniteness Analysis
Claim 13 introduces “the train control system” without antecedent basis in claim 12.
Claim 12 recites communication within a train control network, but does not recite a train control system, nor does it define what component(s) constitute such a “system” as distinct from the “network.”
Because “train control system” is newly introduced and not clearly tied to any previously-recited structure, the scope of claim 13 is unclear: it is not reasonably certain what structure must be “configured to output an action,” and whether that structure is part of the claimed crossing gate mechanism, external to it, or some combination.
LIST OF REFERENCES USEDReference 1: US 10,589,766 (“Ref. 1”) Reference 2: US 10,593,170 (“Ref. 2”) Reference 3: US 2022/0185350 (“Ref. 3”)
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 1-11 and 16-20 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 1 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 1 reads:
A crossing gate mechanism comprising: an enclosure housing multiple components including a control unit configured to operate the crossing gate mechanism and associated crossing gate arm, wherein the enclosure comprises a base and a cover, the cover being moveable between multiple positions including an open position and a closed position, and a cover detection device configured to detect a position of the cover including the open position and the closed position.
Rejection (35 U.S.C. §103) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 1A: “A crossing gate mechanism”
Ref. 1 discloses a railroad crossing gate system including a crossing gate 100 operated by a gate control mechanism 150. The gate control mechanism 150 is the crossing gate mechanism responsible for operating the crossing gate.
Limitation 1B: “an enclosure housing multiple components including a control unit configured to operate the crossing gate mechanism and associated crossing gate arm”
Ref. 1 teaches that the gate control mechanism 150 houses and/or is associated with the electrical and mechanical components used to raise and lower gate arms, including the gate motor 202. Ref. 1 further discloses the presence of a gate control board/panel associated with the motor circuit (as part of the control architecture of the gate control mechanism 150), i.e., a control unit configured to operate the mechanism and associated gate arm(s).
The gate control mechanism 150 necessarily is a housing/enclosure for such components, as it is described as a “mechanism” that contains or houses the motor 202 and related control/monitoring components.
Limitation 1C: “wherein the enclosure comprises a base and a cover, the cover being moveable between multiple positions including an open position and a closed position”
Ref. 1 teaches the gate control mechanism 150 as a housed mechanism containing internal components (e.g., motor 202, monitoring/alarm system 200, sensing switch 210, local monitor 230, etc.). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such gate control mechanisms are implemented in protective housings/enclosures having a stationary portion (base) and an access portion (cover/door) that is opened for servicing and closed for environmental protection and security.
Ref. 2 explicitly teaches an enclosure housing 42 containing a PCB 50 and internal electronics, where the device is installed with respect to a movable door and its frame; the door transitions between open and closed positions, which are sensed by the magnetic sensing device 40/Hall sensor 82 relative to magnet 34. This teaches the base/cover relationship (frame/base versus door/cover) and the concept of the cover being moveable between open/closed positions.
Limitation 1D: “and a cover detection device configured to detect a position of the cover including the open position and the closed position.”
Ref. 2 teaches detecting door (cover) position using magnet assembly 30 (magnet 34) and a Hall effect sensor 82 coupled to controller 70 on PCB 50 within enclosure housing 42, where the presence/absence/proximity of magnet 34 relative to sensor 82 indicates door closed/open. Thus, Ref. 2 teaches a cover/door detection device for detecting open/closed position.
Applying the Ref. 2 door-position sensing arrangement to the Ref. 1 gate control mechanism 150 provides a “cover detection device configured to detect a position of the cover including the open position and the closed position,” as claimed.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the door/cover position detection arrangement of Ref. 2 (magnet 34 and Hall sensor 82 with controller 70) into the enclosure of the crossing gate control mechanism 150 of Ref. 1 in order to detect whether the enclosure cover/door is open or closed for purposes of maintenance awareness and security monitoring. This is a predictable use of known door-state sensing technology (Ref. 2) in a closely analogous environment (an enclosure protecting critical equipment, Ref. 1) to yield the predictable result of providing an open/closed indication.
Claim 2 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 2 reads: 2. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the control unit or the cover detection device is configured to output a signal or notification based on the position of the cover.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 2A: “control unit or the cover detection device is configured to output a signal or notification based on the position of the cover.”
Ref. 2 teaches controller 70 receiving the Hall sensor 82 input and providing output(s) indicative of door open/closed state, including controlling the LED indicator 80 and providing output to the wireless transmitter circuit 86 for broadcasting via antenna 88 to a user interface/control panel (i.e., a notification).
Ref. 1 teaches output/indication generation based on sensed conditions: current sensing switch 210 energizes outputs 216/218 which drive the local current monitor 230 including visual indicator 234 and/or activate the remote device 240. These are signals/notifications in response to a sensed condition.
Thus, the combination teaches outputting a signal/notification based on cover position (door open/closed) detected via the Ref. 2 sensor arrangement applied to the Ref. 1 mechanism.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 2)
It would have been obvious to output a signal/notification based on cover position because Ref. 1 already teaches generating local/remote indications (e.g., via outputs 216/218, local monitor 230, indicator 234, remote device 240) and Ref. 2 teaches generating a door-status output (LED 80 and wireless broadcast via 86/88). Integrating the door status into the same signaling/notification framework of a crossing gate mechanism yields predictable operational benefits (maintenance awareness, tamper indication).
Claim 3 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 3 reads: 3. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the cover detection device is arranged solely on the cover, or solely on the base, or on a combination of the cover and the base.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 3A: “cover detection device … arranged … on a combination of the cover and the base.”
Ref. 2 teaches a magnet assembly 30 with magnet 34 mounted to one of the two relatively moving members (door/cover), and the door/window magnetic sensing device 40 including Hall sensor 82 on PCB 50 mounted to the other member (door frame/base). This is an arrangement on a combination of the cover and the base (one portion on the cover, another portion on the base).
Since claim 3 is satisfied by any one of the recited alternatives, Ref. 2’s combination-of-cover-and-base arrangement meets the limitation.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 3)
It would have been obvious to arrange the cover detection device across the cover and base (e.g., magnet on cover and sensor on base) because Ref. 2 teaches precisely that configuration as a robust door-state sensing arrangement, and such placement is directly compatible with a gate mechanism enclosure cover/door as in Ref. 1.
Claim 4 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 4 reads: 4. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, comprising multiple cover detection devices configured to detect the position of the cover.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 4A: “multiple cover detection devices configured to detect the position of the cover.”
Ref. 2 teaches that door/cover position detection can be implemented using multiple cooperating detection elements including (at minimum) magnet assembly 30 (magnet 34) and the sensing device 40 (Hall effect sensor 82 with controller 70) working together to detect open/closed position. These are multiple devices/elements participating in the cover detection function.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide redundancy by implementing more than one sensing element (e.g., multiple Hall sensors 82 on PCB 50 or multiple magnets 34) to improve reliability in a safety-critical crossing gate mechanism environment, yielding the predictable result of more robust cover position detection.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 4)
It would have been obvious to employ multiple cover detection devices (e.g., redundant sensors) in the Ref. 1 mechanism using Ref. 2’s cover detection approach because redundant sensing is a known and predictable technique to increase reliability and fault tolerance in critical monitoring applications, particularly for safety-related systems such as crossing gate control equipment.
Claim 5 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 5 reads: 5. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 4, wherein the multiple cover detection devices are arranged on the cover, the base, or a combination of the cover and the base.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 5A: “multiple cover detection devices … arranged … on … a combination of the cover and the base.”
Ref. 2’s arrangement places magnet assembly 30 on one structure (door/cover) and Hall sensor 82 (within sensing device 40) on the other structure (frame/base), i.e., a combination placement.
As discussed for claim 4, implementing multiple such sensing points (e.g., multiple sensor/magnet pairs) would have been an obvious redundancy enhancement with predictable results.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 5)
It would have been obvious to distribute multiple detection devices on the cover and/or base because Ref. 2 demonstrates that separating magnet 34 and Hall sensor 82 across the movable and stationary portions is a workable configuration, and distributing multiple sensing points in that same manner predictably improves detection robustness.
Claim 6 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 6 reads: 6. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the control unit comprises a computing platform, and wherein the cover detection device is configured to be sensed by or communicate with the computing platform.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 6A: “control unit comprises a computing platform.”
Ref. 1’s gate control mechanism 150 includes a gate control board/panel for controlling motor 202 and operating the gate, which constitutes a computing/control platform for executing gate control functions and interfacing with sensors/monitors.
Ref. 2 explicitly teaches controller 70 on PCB 50 as the computing platform receiving Hall sensor 82 input.
Limitation 6B: “cover detection device is configured to be sensed by or communicate with the computing platform.”
Ref. 2 teaches Hall effect sensor 82 providing an input to controller 70 (computing platform) such that the computing platform senses/processes the cover position state.
Applying this to Ref. 1 means the gate control computing platform would sense/process the cover detection signal.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 6)
It would have been obvious to interface a cover detection device to the gate control computing platform because Ref. 2 teaches processing door-state signals with controller 70, and Ref. 1 teaches electronic monitoring/control circuitry for gate operation; integrating the two is a predictable integration to allow the control unit to use door-state information.
Claim 7 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 7 reads: 7. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 6, wherein the cover detection device is arranged on the computing platform of the control unit.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 7A: “cover detection device is arranged on the computing platform.”
Ref. 2 teaches Hall effect sensor 82 mounted on printed circuit board 50 with the controller 70, i.e., arranged on the computing platform hardware (PCB-based platform).
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 7)
It would have been obvious to mount the cover detection sensor on the control unit’s computing platform (PCB) because Ref. 2 teaches mounting Hall sensor 82 on PCB 50, which reduces wiring complexity and integrates sensing directly with control electronics—an expected, predictable design choice for compact enclosure monitoring.
Claim 8 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 8 reads: 8. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the control unit or the cover detection device is configured to communicate within a network.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 8A: “configured to communicate within a network.”
Ref. 2 teaches controller 70 outputting to a wireless transmitter circuit 86 broadcasting via antenna 88, with a remote device 90 receiving via wireless receiving circuit 104 and antenna 108—network communication of door/cover status.
Ref. 1 further teaches remote device 240 (event recorder/monitoring device) communicating with other systems (e.g., via a LAN interface / communication port), evidencing network-based monitoring architectures within crossing gate environments.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 8)
It would have been obvious to network-enable cover-position communication because Ref. 2 teaches wireless transmission of door state and Ref. 1 teaches remote monitoring/recording (remote device 240) for crossing gate equipment. Incorporating cover-state information into network communications predictably extends the monitoring capability.
Claim 9 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 9 reads: 9. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: a display coupled to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to turn off the display when the cover is in the closed position, and wherein the control unit is configured to turn on the display when the cover is in the open position.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 9A: “a display coupled to the control unit”
Ref. 2 teaches an LED indicator 80 controlled by controller 70 (control unit) based on the Hall sensor 82 signal, functioning as a display/indicator coupled to the control unit.
Ref. 1 also teaches visual indicator 234 as part of local current monitor 230 associated with the system outputs and monitoring circuitry.
Limitation 9B: “turn off the display when the cover is in the closed position”
Ref. 2 teaches that the LED indicator 80 behavior is controlled based on the magnet 34 proximity to Hall sensor 82 representing closed position; the indicator can stop blinking and/or be off when the door is properly closed (magnet detected).
Limitation 9C: “turn on the display when the cover is in the open position.”
Ref. 2 teaches that when magnet 34 is not sensed or is too far (door open), controller 70 drives the LED indicator 80 to illuminate/flash to indicate state. This corresponds to turning on the display when the cover is open.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 9)
It would have been obvious to drive a display/indicator as a function of cover open/closed state because Ref. 2 explicitly teaches controlling indicator 80 based on door-state sensing, and applying the same to the Ref. 1 gate control mechanism provides a predictable human-readable indication for maintenance/security purposes.
Claim 10 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 10 reads: 10. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 9, wherein the display is an internal display positioned within the enclosure.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 10A: “display is an internal display positioned within the enclosure.”
Ref. 2 teaches LED indicator 80 disposed on PCB 50 within enclosure housing 42, i.e., positioned within the enclosure.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 10)
It would have been obvious to implement the claimed display as an internal indicator within the enclosure because Ref. 2 teaches exactly such an internal LED indicator 80 located within housing 42 and driven by controller 70.
Claim 11 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 11 reads: 11. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 9, wherein the display is an external display positioned outside on the enclosure.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 11A: “display is an external display positioned outside on the enclosure.”
Ref. 1 teaches a local current monitor 230 including visual indicator 234 used to provide on-site personnel with a visual indication. Such a visual indicator 234 is inherently positioned so it is observable by personnel, and therefore would be positioned on or accessible from outside the housing/enclosure associated with the monitored equipment.
In view of Ref. 2’s teaching of cover-state sensing (Hall sensor 82, magnet 34) and display/indicator control (indicator 80), it would have been obvious to provide an external indicator (e.g., an externally-visible visual indicator like 234) on the Ref. 1 enclosure to indicate cover status for convenient visual confirmation without opening the enclosure.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 11)
It would have been obvious to place the cover-status display externally on the enclosure to improve visibility and reduce unnecessary opening of the enclosure during inspection, particularly where Ref. 1 already teaches external/observable visual indicators (234) for maintenance personnel and Ref. 2 teaches driving an indicator based on a door/cover state.
Claim 16 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 16 reads: 16. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to disable and enable access to the crossing gate mechanism based on the position of the cover.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 16A: “disable and enable access … based on the position of the cover.”
Ref. 2 teaches determining door open/closed state via magnet 34 and Hall sensor 82 processed by controller 70, and generating outputs/indications based on that state (indicator 80, transmitter 86).
Ref. 1 teaches a gate control mechanism 150 with controlled operation of gate motor 202 and system monitoring outputs (e.g., outputs 216/218, monitor 230, remote device 240).
It would have been obvious to use the cover open/closed state determined by the Ref. 2 sensing arrangement to conditionally permit or restrict access-related behavior in the Ref. 1 gate mechanism, such as enabling/disabling servicing access (e.g., enabling authorized access workflows when cover open, disabling functional access/operation while cover open) because the control unit already processes condition inputs and generates control outputs.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 16)
It would have been obvious to disable/enable access based on cover position because (i) Ref. 2 teaches reliable cover-state detection, and (ii) Ref. 1 teaches safety-critical equipment control. Conditioning access/operation on cover state is a predictable safety/security interlock implementation that reduces risk during servicing and deters tampering.
Claim 17 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 17 reads: 17. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: an exterior indicator arranged on an outside of the enclosure, wherein the exterior indicator is configured to indicate the position of the cover.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 17A: “an exterior indicator arranged on an outside of the enclosure”
Ref. 1 teaches visual indicator 234 associated with local current monitor 230, providing an on-site visual indication—an exterior-visible indicator.
Ref. 2 teaches output indicators (e.g., LED indicator 80) driven by controller 70 based on door state, which can be implemented to be visible externally (e.g., by placement on an outer-facing portion of the enclosure or behind a window).
Limitation 17B: “configured to indicate the position of the cover.”
Ref. 2 teaches the indicator 80 reflects the magnet 34 proximity/door state as sensed by Hall sensor 82 (open/closed).
Applying that to Ref. 1 means an exterior indicator (e.g., indicator 234) can be driven based on the cover detection signal to indicate cover position.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 17)
It would have been obvious to provide an exterior indicator for cover position because Ref. 2 teaches generating a visible indicator based on door position, and Ref. 1 already teaches providing visible indicators (234) for maintenance personnel. Doing so predictably improves inspection efficiency and security awareness.
Claim 18 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 18 reads: 18. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: an interior light arranged within the enclosure, wherein the interior light is on when the cover is in the open position.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 18A: “an interior light arranged within the enclosure”
Ref. 2 teaches LED indicator 80 located within enclosure housing 42 (interior), i.e., a light arranged within the enclosure.
Limitation 18B: “interior light is on when the cover is in the open position.”
Ref. 2 teaches the controller 70 drives LED indicator 80 based on whether the magnet 34 is sensed by Hall sensor 82; when the magnet is not sensed (door open), the indicator 80 is illuminated/blinking, satisfying the “on when open” relationship.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 18)
It would have been obvious to include an interior light that is on when the cover is open because Ref. 2 teaches activating an internal LED 80 as a function of door state, and applying the same to a crossing gate enclosure provides a predictable servicing aid and status cue.
Claim 19 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 19 reads: 19. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: a locking mechanism configured to stop movement of the crossing gate arm, or stop movement and lock the crossing gate arm, wherein the locking mechanism is activated when the cover is in the open position and the crossing gate arm is in motion.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 19A: “a locking mechanism configured to stop movement of the crossing gate arm, or stop movement and lock the crossing gate arm”
Ref. 1 teaches that the crossing gate arm is raised/lowered by the gate control mechanism 150 using motor 202, and therefore stopping motor drive and/or engaging braking/control circuitry stops movement of the gate arm (i.e., a functional locking/stopping mechanism achieved via controlled motor operation and/or braking). Ref. 1 further teaches dynamic control/monitoring of the motor’s operation via sensing and control circuitry (switch 210, monitor 230, remote device 240), which are compatible with implementing a stop/lock control response.
Limitation 19B: “locking mechanism is activated when the cover is in the open position and the crossing gate arm is in motion.”
Ref. 2 teaches detecting cover open/closed state using magnet 34 and Hall sensor 82 processed by controller 70.
It would have been obvious to use this detected “cover open” state as an interlock condition to trigger a stop/lock response in Ref. 1 when motor 202 is driving (arm in motion), because this is a predictable safety modification: preventing moving machinery operation during access/open-cover servicing to reduce injury risk and prevent maintenance interference.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 19)
It would have been obvious to activate a stop/lock function when the cover is open and the gate arm is in motion because Ref. 2 provides reliable detection of an open cover condition, and Ref. 1 provides controllable actuation of the gate arm via motor 202 and associated control circuitry. Using cover-open as an interlock input to stop motion is a predictable safety enhancement for service access situations.
Claim 20 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2
Claim 20 reads: 20. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: a logging system configured to record the position of cover of the crossing gate mechanism utilizing the cover detection device.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 20A: “a logging system configured to record the position of cover … utilizing the cover detection device.”
Ref. 1 teaches use of a remote device 240 such as an event recorder/analyzer/recorder that stores events (logging) and provides remote monitoring capability.
Ref. 2 teaches cover position detection using Hall sensor 82 and magnet 34 processed by controller 70, producing a cover-status signal.
It would have been obvious to log cover open/close status events (from the Ref. 2 cover detection device) in the Ref. 1 logging/recording system (remote device 240) as another monitored event type, yielding predictable results (audit trail of access events; maintenance and security reporting).
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 20)
It would have been obvious to record/log the cover position because Ref. 1 teaches event recording (remote device 240) for monitored conditions and Ref. 2 teaches generating a cover-position signal. Logging door-open/door-closed is a predictable extension of event recording for equipment security and maintenance tracking.
Claims 12-15 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3
Claim 12 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3
Claim 12 reads: 12. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the control unit or the cover detection device is configured to communicate within a train control network, and wherein the cover detection device and/or the control unit is configured to generate and output a signal or notification based on the position of the cover.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 12A: “configured to communicate within a train control network”
Ref. 3 teaches a train control network architecture including a back office system (e.g., PTC back office) that communicates via a wireless network to distribute train control information (including bulletins and work zones).
Ref. 1 teaches crossing gate equipment with remote monitoring architecture (remote device 240 capable of communications), and Ref. 2 teaches wireless signaling of door state (transmitter 86, antenna 88).
Combining these teachings, it would have been obvious to have the Ref. 1 crossing gate mechanism communicate door/cover status within the train control network taught by Ref. 3, using the wireless communication approach of Ref. 2 and/or the remote monitoring communication approach of Ref. 1.
Limitation 12B: “generate and output a signal or notification based on the position of the cover.”
Ref. 2 teaches generating outputs/notifications based on door open/closed (controller 70 responding to Hall sensor 82 and controlling indicator 80 and transmitter 86).
Ref. 1 teaches generating outputs/indications for monitored conditions (outputs 216/218, monitor 230, indicator 234, remote device 240).
Thus the combination teaches generating and outputting a cover-position signal/notification.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 12)
It would have been obvious to communicate cover-position status within a train control network because Ref. 3 teaches network distribution of operational control information and Ref. 1/Ref. 2 teach generation of monitoring outputs and wireless/remote signaling. Integrating cover-open/closed status as a reportable condition in such a network yields predictable benefits (remote awareness of enclosure access for safety/security).
Claim 13 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3
Claim 13 reads: 13. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 12, wherein the train control system is configured to output an action in response to the signal or notification based on the position of the cover.
Claim Analysis (103)
Limitation 13A: “train control system … output an action in response to the signal or notification”
Ref. 3 teaches that train control back office/network components take responsive actions based on received operational information (e.g., distributing/issuing control information such as bulletins/work zones over the network).
With cover status from Ref. 2 integrated into the Ref. 3 train control network, the train control system would predictably be configured to output an action (e.g., issuing an operational notice/constraint) in response to a cover-open condition indicating maintenance/tamper risk.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 13)
It would have been obvious for the train control system to take an action in response to cover-position signals because Ref. 3 teaches network-based issuance/management of operational control information, and cover-open status is a system condition that would logically trigger operational/administrative actions for safety and maintenance coordination.
Claim 14 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3
Claim 14 reads: 14. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 13, wherein the action of the train control system comprises a creation, modification, or removal of a bulletin.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 14A: “action … comprises a creation, modification, or removal of a bulletin.”
Ref. 3 teaches bulletin data as part of train control information distributed/managed by the train control back office/network.
It would have been obvious that “creation/modification/removal” are standard lifecycle operations for such bulletins (i.e., issuance, update, cancellation) performed by the back office/system in response to changing field conditions such as a cover-open indication.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 14)
It would have been obvious to implement the responsive action as bulletin creation/modification/removal because Ref. 3 already teaches the train control system managing and distributing bulletin-type information, and a cover-open condition is a known operational status that predictably motivates issuance/update/cancellation of such notices for maintenance/safety coordination.
Claim 15 — Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103 Over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3
Claim 15 reads: 15. The crossing gate mechanism of claim 13, wherein the action of the train control system comprises a creation, modification, removal of a work zone.
Claim Analysis
Limitation 15A: “action … comprises … creation, modification, removal of a work zone.”
Ref. 3 teaches work zones within a train control context (e.g., operational zones/restrictions managed via train control/back office communications).
It would have been obvious to create/modify/remove a work zone in response to a cover-open condition because such a condition can correspond to maintenance/repair activities near or at the crossing gate mechanism, and work zones are a predictable operational control mechanism to protect workers and coordinate train movements.
Motivation to Combine / Modify (Claim 15)
It would have been obvious to implement the responsive action as creation/modification/removal of a work zone because Ref. 3 teaches work zones as part of the train control framework, and integrating cover-open status into that framework predictably supports maintenance work planning and safety protections.
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