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 § 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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaughan (PG Pub 2022/0169249).
Regarding claim 1, Gaughan teaches a system comprising:
receiver assemblies configured to be disposed onboard a vehicle system (abstract; paragraphs 7 and 28-29; figure 2, elements 206 and 208) and spaced apart from each other along a length of the vehicle system (paragraphs 7 and 104),
the receiver assemblies configured to receive a signal responsive to an event occurring on the vehicle system between the receiver assemblies (paragraphs 5, 7, and 101),
each of the receiver assemblies configured to generate a timestamp indicative of a time at which the receiver assembly received the signal (paragraphs 7 and 98-103; figure 7, element 1108); and
a controller comprising one or more processors (figure 7, element 11106; paragraphs 7 and 101),
the controller configured to identify a section of the vehicle system that includes a source of the event (paragraphs 7 and 103) based at least on the timestamps indicative of the time at which each receiver assembly received the signal (paragraphs 7 and 98-103; figure 7, element 1108) and a distance between the receiver assemblies (paragraphs 100 and 103-115; figures 9-11, all).
Regarding claim 2, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the receiver assemblies are configured to receive the signal as a pneumatic signal that represents a change in pressure within a brake pipe (paragraphs 28-29).
Regarding claim 3, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the receiver assemblies are configured to receive the signal as an electromagnetic signal that is generated by a sensor device associated with a brake system of the vehicle system (paragraphs 30-33).
Regarding claim 5, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify the section of the vehicle system as a single vehicle in the vehicle system, a gap between two vehicles in the vehicle system, or a location on the single vehicle (paragraphs 108-115; figures 10 and 11, all).
Regarding claim 6, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to identify the section of the vehicle system that includes the source based on ratios of different receiver distances (paragraphs 7 and 103-115; figures 9-11, all),
each of the different receiver distances defined between a corresponding one of the receiver assemblies and the section that includes the source of the event (paragraphs 120-123; figure 12, all).
Regarding claim 7, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify the event as an unplanned brake application of a brake system of the vehicle system (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 8, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to differentiate at least one of a timing or a force between a first brake application by a leading portion of the vehicle system and a second brake application by a trailing portion of the vehicle system (figure 9, steps 1306 and 1314; paragraphs 108-112) based on a location of the section including the source of the event (figure 9, step 1314; paragraphs 116-119),
wherein the leading portion and the trailing portion are disposed on opposite sides of the source of the event (figures 10 and 11, all; paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 9, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to control the trailing portion to apply the second brake application at least one of earlier than or with more force than the first brake application applied by the leading portion (figure 9, steps 1306 and 1314; paragraphs 108-112) responsive to determining that the section including the source of the event is closer to a leading end of the vehicle system than a trailing end of the vehicle system (figure 9, step 1314; paragraphs 116-119).
Regarding claim 10, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a first receiver assembly of the receiver assemblies is configured to be onboard a first vehicle of the vehicle system (paragraph 104; figure 8; figures 10 and 11; paragraph 108) and a second receiver assembly of the receiver assemblies is configured to be onboard a second vehicle of the vehicle system, the first vehicle disposed closer to a leading end of the vehicle system than to a trailing end of the vehicle system, the second vehicle disposed closer to the trailing end than to the leading end (figures 10 and 11, all; paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 11, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 10, wherein an intermediate receiver assembly of the receiver assemblies is configured to be disposed onboard an intermediate vehicle located between the first vehicle and the second vehicle along a length of the vehicle system (paragraph 104; figure 8; figures 10 and 11; paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 21, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a sensor to generate the signal responsive to the event (paragraphs 101 and 112; figure 7, element 11100; figure 8, elements 1100).
Regarding claim 22, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the signal propagates from the sensor to each of the receiver assemblies (figures 10 and 11, all; paragraphs 115-118).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaughan (PG Pub 2022/0169249) in view of Kumar et al. (PG Pub 2021/0237696).
Regarding claim 4, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the receiver assemblies are configured to receive the electromagnetic signal from the sensor device (paragraphs 30-33).
Gaughan is silent as to wherein the receiver assemblies are configured to receive the electromagnetic signal via a fiber optic line.
Kumar teaches wherein the receiver assemblies are configured to receive the electromagnetic signal via a fiber optic line (paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system of Gaughan with the fiber optic lines of Kumar since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, both Gaughan and Kumar are moving electromechanical signals along a vehicle system and whether these signals were moved on wires of fiber optic lines would not be critical to getting the signals to the main controller, which is also found on both Gaughan and Kumar.
Regarding claim 12, Gaughan teaches the system of claim 1.
Gaughan is silent as to the system further comprising a location determining device global positioning system (GPS) receiver configured to be disposed onboard the vehicle system and configured to generate location data of the vehicle system,
the controller configured to determine a geographic location at which the event occurred or is identified based on the location data and the section of the vehicle system that includes the source of the event.
Kumar teaches the system further comprising a location determining device global positioning system (GPS) receiver configured to be disposed onboard the vehicle system and configured to generate location data of the vehicle system (paragraphs 36, 37, and 39; figure 1, element 118),
the controller configured to determine a geographic location at which the event occurred or is identified based on the location data and the section of the vehicle system that includes the source of the event (paragraphs 24, 39, and 50-53; figure 2, elements 202, 204, 206, and 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system of Gaughan with the location sensors of Kumar since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Kumar uses a known sensor type, such as a global positioning system receiver, on each vehicle of the vehicle system in order to determine the location of each vehicle when any event, such as those events described in Gaughan, occurs on the braking system of the vehicle system. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it allows tracking of the events to a specific location which allows an operator or system to locate a maintenance crew as described in Kumar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Gaughan does not teach anything other than a first to detect system, the examiner disagrees. Gaughan teaches assigning timestamps to the signals detected by the sensors, which by doing so, act as receiver assemblies. Gaughan teaches that the signal propagates outward from the initial detecting car 3 in figure 11 by the increasing timestamp value that the signal is received in those cars after it is detected by car 3. Therefore, Gaughan teaches each and every limitation of claim 1 and new claims 21 and 22.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the tracking of timestamps at which receiver assemblies receive signals indicative of the event occurring) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Pat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights