DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/13/2023.
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-32 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 is made dependent on the system of claim 14 which appears to be a typographical error meant to read “The system of claim 11”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8, 11-13, 17, 19, 21-22, 25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin (CN 112304232 A), hereinafter Qin, in view of Bartek (US 20200262457 A1), hereinafter Bartek.
Regarding claim 1, Qin, as shown below, discloses a rail monitoring system comprising the following limitations:
a) installing a monitoring sensor on a rail at a location of the rail to be monitored (See at least Fig. 1, [0077] “the bracket 10 is placed on the two tracks 40”);
d) wherein said sensor comprises a radar unit, and wherein installing said sensor on said rail includes directing the aim of said radar unit to a fixed structure relative to said rail (See at least [0170] “The radar scans the surrounding environment, draws the environmental outline, identifies the location of the canopy 70, the height of the train platform 60,”); and
e) wherein said radar unit has a detection range to detect a target relative to the location on the rail to which the sensor is mounted, the target being located within the detection range of said radar unit, wherein capturing with said monitoring sensor rail data comprising movements of the rail being monitored comprises movements of the rail relative to the target, and wherein determining from captured movements a condition of the rail being monitored includes the distance between the rail and the target. (See at least [0170] “The radar scans the surrounding environment, draws the environmental outline, identifies the location of the canopy 70, the height of the train platform 60,” The Examiner notes that Qin discloses utilizing the rail mounted radar to measure distances to at least a platform (target) which are then used for further processing. Additionally, this claim element does not positively recite the steps of at least capturing with said monitoring sensor rail data movements of the rail and determining from captured movements a condition of the rail.)
Qin does not explicitly disclose b) capturing with said monitoring sensor rail data comprising movements of the rail being monitored; c) determining from captured movements a condition of the rail being monitored. However, Bartek, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
b) capturing with said monitoring sensor rail data comprising movements of the rail being monitored (See at least [0005] “a vertical rail measurement device to measure maximum/minimum vertical displacement distance for the movement of a rail when a train is passing over the device” While Bartek does not disclose a Radar sensor, Bartek discloses a distance based sensing system utilizing mechanical means which provides ranging data analogous to the primary reference.);
c) determining from captured movements a condition of the rail being monitored (See at least [0036] “Outputs from all of the data from the vertical rail measurement device 100, 300, 400 may be combined together to electronically represent the status or condition”);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a portable, light-weight, electronic device that is capable of logging displacement data (See at least [0003] “portable, light-weight, electronic device that mounts easily to the web of the rail and the base on the ground and data logs the information that includes maximum/minimum vertical rail displacement”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qin does not disclose said sensor includes circuitry programmable to record rail data at periodic intervals. However, Bartek further discloses
said sensor includes circuitry programmable to record rail data at periodic intervals (See at least [0034] “The microprocessor may be programmed to include data logging features as well and to record and log any and all data from the vertical rail measurement device” [0004] “The device may sense an approaching train, automatically turn on the device, and measure the real-time vertical rail displacement” Bartek discloses periodically recording real time data when trains approach).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a portable, light-weight, electronic device that is capable of logging displacement data (See at least [0003] “portable, light-weight, electronic device that mounts easily to the web of the rail and the base on the ground and data logs the information that includes maximum/minimum vertical rail displacement”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Qin further discloses
said sensor includes communication means for communicating rail data from said sensor to a remote component by broadcasting a communications signal (See at least [0170] “The radar is controlled by a fourth controller and transmits a large amount of data via TCP/IP communication.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qin further discloses
wherein said radar unit, and wherein installing said sensor on said rail includes directing the aim of said radar unit to the target, and wherein the target comprises a fixed structure relative to said rail (See at least [0170] “The radar scans the surrounding environment, draws the environmental outline, identifies the location of the canopy 70, the height of the train platform 60,”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Qin further discloses
installing the fixed structure proximate to said rail being monitored (See at least [0170] “The radar scans the surrounding environment, draws the environmental outline, identifies the location of the canopy 70, the height of the train platform 60,” Qin discloses using a man made (previously installed) feature for radar reflection).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qin further discloses
the method further including designating a threshold distance for a safe operation distance between said rail and said target, and wherein when the condition of the rail does not meet or exceeds the threshold safety distance, communicating an alert (See at least [0111] “When the sixth distance H<sub>6</sub> is less than the first preset value, it indicates that the train has difficulty passing through the train platform 60 normally or that the train doors are difficult to open after the train stops, for example, if there are foreign objects on the side of the train platform 60. At this time, an alarm is issued to prompt track maintenance personnel to handle the fault”).
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Qin does not disclose wherein said mounting means for mounting said monitoring sensor on the rail comprises a clamping member being adjustable to impart a force onto the rail to secure the mounting sensor in a fixed position. However, Bartek further discloses
wherein said mounting means for mounting said monitoring sensor on the rail comprises a clamping member being adjustable to impart a force onto the rail to secure the mounting sensor in a fixed position (See at least [0024] “the mounting portion 120 of the control box 110 may attach or mount to the web 12 of the rail 10 via various magnets […] the mounting portion 120 and the control box 110 may utilize other mechanical coupling means, such as straps, snaps, clips, screw fasteners, and any other mechanical coupling means without departing from this invention.” ).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a portable, light-weight, electronic device that is capable of logging displacement data (See at least [0003] “portable, light-weight, electronic device that mounts easily to the web of the rail and the base on the ground and data logs the information that includes maximum/minimum vertical rail displacement”).
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 17. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 17, shown above.
Regarding claim 22, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 17. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 17, shown above.
Regarding claim 25, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8, shown above.
Regarding claim 27, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 27 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 28, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 28 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Qin does not disclose said monitoring sensor includes a communication component that is configured to communicate and receive signals between a remote device. However, Bartek further discloses
said monitoring sensor includes a communication component that is configured to communicate and receive signals between a remote device (See at least [0037] “each sensor (node) having its own power source and transceiver. The nodes can communicate with other nodes and determine the best path of communication and minimize power requirements throughout the rail yard.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a portable, light-weight, electronic device that is capable of logging displacement data (See at least [0003] “portable, light-weight, electronic device that mounts easily to the web of the rail and the base on the ground and data logs the information that includes maximum/minimum vertical rail displacement”).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Qin does not disclose said monitoring sensor includes a communication component that is configured to communicate and receive signals between a remote device. However, Bartek further discloses
a remote device that receives monitoring signals from the monitoring unit (See at least [0033] “The purpose of the radio is to transmit data from the vertical rail measurement device 100, 300, 400 to any remote locations as required.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a portable, light-weight, electronic device that is capable of logging displacement data (See at least [0003] “portable, light-weight, electronic device that mounts easily to the web of the rail and the base on the ground and data logs the information that includes maximum/minimum vertical rail displacement”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Bartek, in further view of Kernwein (US 20090216395 A1), hereinafter Kernwein.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose communicating the condition of said rail to an on board system of a railway vehicle or train traveling on or approaching the rail being monitored, and wherein when the condition is an unsafe condition, stopping further progress of the railway vehicle or train. However, Kernwein, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
communicating the condition of said rail to an on board system of a railway vehicle or train traveling on or approaching the rail being monitored, and wherein when the condition is an unsafe condition, stopping further progress of the railway vehicle or train (See at least [0035] “In a further embodiment, a braking system 40 is provided, and this braking system 40 is in communication with the computer 18. Further, the braking system 40 is configured or adapted to automatically brake the train TR based at least in part upon the track data 22, feature data 24, determined condition”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the stopping system disclosed by Kernwein. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure safety (See at least [0004] “due to the physics and restraints upon operating a train, appropriate safety arrangements are required at such intersections in order to ensure the safety of other vehicles and pedestrians.”).
Claim 14 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Bartek, in further view of Qu (CN 108614239 A), hereinafter Qu.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose including a target alignment tool being removably mounted to the target, including a level, and including a beam generator that generates a beam that is alignable to radiate onto an alignment point on the monitoring sensor, and wherein said target alignment is confirmed when said target alignment tool beam radiates onto said alignment point. However, Qu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
including a target alignment tool being removably mounted to the target, including a level, and including a beam generator that generates a beam that is alignable to radiate onto an alignment point on the monitoring sensor, and wherein said target alignment is confirmed when said target alignment tool beam radiates onto said alignment point. (See at least Fig. 1, “FIG. 1, the alignment system further comprises: level (such as 400, 410) for adjusting the relationship between alignment beam emitted by the laser with the alignment mark so that the alignment beam is vertical to the plane with the alignment mark.” Qu discloses a leveling system attached to movable devices).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the alignment system disclosed by Qu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously level a system at high efficiency and low cost. (See at least “between the alignment beam and the alignment mark by level adjustment laser emission, so the testing operation simply, at high efficiency, high precision and low cost”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose the target comprises a reference stake. However, Qu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the target comprises a reference stake (See at least Fig. 1 “Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 1, the alignment system further comprises a first stent 300 and a second stent 301, the first stent 300 has the first three-dimensional table, second bracket 301 is provided with the second three-dimensional table”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the alignment system disclosed by Qu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously level a system at high efficiency and low cost. (See at least “between the alignment beam and the alignment mark by level adjustment laser emission, so the testing operation simply, at high efficiency, high precision and low cost”).
Claims 15 and 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Bartek, in further view of Max (EP 3275764 A1), hereinafter Max.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring sensor is implemented in a switch track being controlled by an actuator that moves to throw the switch between open and closed positions, wherein said monitoring sensor is mounted on the actuator of the switch track, and wherein said monitoring sensor determines the position of the switch. However, Max, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the monitoring sensor is implemented in a switch track being controlled by an actuator that moves to throw the switch between open and closed positions (See at least “The visual sensors 500 include stereo cameras, ultrasound and radar sensors, and detect events on the track portion under observation through intelligent software”, “The term "track elements" includes switchable elements needed for the operation of the rail network and rail vehicles. Track elements preferably comprise movable elements used in the region of the rails, particularly preferably switchable points, switchable track barriers”, “the event messages and then initiates predefined measures corresponding to the event or informs the control personnel of the central control unit. Such measures may include, for example, switching a switch”), wherein said monitoring sensor is mounted on the actuator of the switch track, and wherein said monitoring sensor determines the position of the switch (See at least Fig. 1 “The "Traffic Control Software" directly controls, based on the received events of the fixed visual sensors 500, the switches 400 and barriers 600 wirelessly through the stationary commanders 450, 650 and the power cars 800 via wireless communication channels”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the switching system disclosed by Max. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously control the integrity of the system (See at least “Advantageously, the stationary sensors are arranged such that objects in the area of the sub-rail network can be monitored. As a result, it is not only possible to determine whether a rail-bound vehicle passes a sensor, but also its integrity can be controlled”).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Qin, Bartek, and Max, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and 11. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose the monitoring sensor is coupled with a device that is programmed to react to the track condition signal generated by the radar unit to indicate the open or closed position of the switch track. However, Max, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the monitoring sensor is coupled with a device that is programmed to react to the track condition signal generated by the radar unit to indicate the open or closed position of the switch track (See at least “The computer program preferably analyzes the received event messages in order, for example, to classify the event messages and then initiates predefined measures corresponding to the event or informs the control personnel of the central control unit. Such measures may include, for example, switching a switch, diverting a rail vehicle, braking or stopping a rail vehicle, opening or closing a barrier, and the like”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the switching system disclosed by Max. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously control the integrity of the system (See at least “The computer program preferably analyzes the received event messages in order, for example, to classify the event messages and then initiates predefined measures corresponding to the event or informs the control personnel of the central control unit. Such measures may include, for example, switching a switch, diverting a rail vehicle, braking or stopping a rail vehicle, opening or closing a barrier, and the like”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Bartek, in further view of Hilleary (US 20240270296 A1), hereinafter Hilleary.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 19 and 11. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose said target comprises another monitoring sensor. However, Hilleary, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said target comprises another monitoring sensor (See at least “[0074] For example, the Advance Preemption points or areas 260, 270 including the advance train detection sensors 168, 170 may be located substantially more than several thousand feet on either side of the crossing 202”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the additional sensor system disclosed by Hilleary. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide redundant, self-deterministic, failsafe, and enhanced motion event detection (See at least [0128] “The pairs of sensor devices 506a, 506b beneficially provide a redundant, self-deterministic, failsafe enhanced advance train detection system 500 with additional health assessment capability and assurance than the advance train detection system described above. […] that is particularly advantageous for railroad applications to detect presence, speed and heading information of a train as it enters, exits and travels through a predetermined section or zone of the railroad tracks 206, 208 and specifically through the crossing 202”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Bartek, in further view of Park (US 20160305459 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Qin and Bartek, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 11 and 19. The combination of Qin and Bartek does not explicitly disclose said mounting means comprises a mounting plate attachable to said monitoring sensor, said mounting plate including an attachment side that attaches to said monitoring sensor and a mounting side, said mounting side having a convex profile. However, Park, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said mounting means comprises a mounting plate attachable to said monitoring sensor, said mounting plate including an attachment side that attaches to said monitoring sensor and a mounting side, said mounting side having a convex profile (See at least Figs. 5A-5B, [0044] “As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, adjustable mounting head 45 may include front and back plates 43 attached together via top plate 44 to which clamping mechanism 10 is attached via holes 48. While plates 43 are illustrated as being rounded, plates 43 may be any shape, including oval, square, rectangular, triangular or any other shape desired.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the mounting system disclosed by Park. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously cost-effectively mount an object with improved speed of assembly and disassembly (See at least [0003] “Therefore, there is a need in the art for a system and method for mounting panels that allows for a cost-effective and improved speed of assembly and disassembly”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin, in view of Bartek, in further view of Park, in further view of Oldewurtel (US 20220170215 A1), hereinafter Oldewurtel.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Qin, Bartek, and Park, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 11, 19, and 23. The combination of Qin, Bartek, and Park does not explicitly disclose said mounting plate includes a magnet, and including adhesive for adhering the mounting side of the mounting plate to a web of a rail, wherein said magnet is disposed in said mounting plate to provide a clamping force against the rail web thereby clamping the adhesive between mounting plate mounting side and the rail web. However, Oldewurtel, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said mounting plate includes a magnet, and including adhesive for adhering the mounting side of the mounting plate to a web of a rail, wherein said magnet is disposed in said mounting plate to provide a clamping force against the rail web thereby clamping the adhesive between mounting plate mounting side and the rail web (See at least Figs. 11-12 [0054] “The magnets 54 hold the entire device on the rail web 52. The pressure cylinder 20 cannot “push away” the device when it is actuated. The magnets 54 and the pressure cylinder 20 are therefore preferably matched to one another in such a way that the following applies: force generated by magnets>force generated by pressure cylinder 20. As a rule, the pressing force of the magnets 54 is greater than the pressing force of the pressure cylinder 20. Due to the greater pressing force, this embodiment is particularly suitable, for example, for fixing adhesive bonds in which the adhesive has to be heated.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rail monitoring disclosed by Qin with the rail movement and condition system disclosed by Bartek with the mounting system disclosed by Park with the attachment system disclosed by Oldewurtel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reliably facilitate a bonding process (See at least [0023] “Such a shape of the pressing ram is particularly advantageous for bringing about a reliable adhesive bonding process of the rail monitoring element to the rail, since flat pressing with a predetermined pressure is particularly advantageous for an adhesive bonding process.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 7, 9-10, and 31 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 7 and 9 and independent claim 13. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 7, two monitoring sensors comprising radar sensors are adjacently spaced along a rail to monitor the longitudinal movement of the rail; 9, wherein the sensor radar unit is configured to generate signals for detection, and wherein said signals are directed to the target, and wherein monitoring includes monitoring the strength of the signal and determining a signal to noise ratio; ascertaining from said signal to noise ratio whether a condition has occurred that affects the measurement of movements of the rail being monitored; 31, c) said monitoring sensor comprising a radar unit, the radar unit having a detection range, the radar unit being programmable to generate and direct a radar signal at a target within the detection range at periodic intervals, at least one signal including the distance of travel of the beam between the radar sensor and the target; and d) a processor configured to determine from said monitoring signals a condition of the rail being monitored that identifies whether there is a change in the railway track that is switchable between one or more positions when the monitoring sensor is mounted on the rail or rail component of the switchable railway track to be monitored and the distance of travel of the signal between the radar sensor and the target changes; e) wherein the target comprises a rail or component of rail or rail component of the switchable railway track the moves relative to the rail or rail component of the switchable railway track to which the sensor is mounted.
Accordingly, claims 7, 9, and 31 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claim 10 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bartek (US 20200070857 A1) - The invention relates to a portable device for measuring lateral rail measurements under service to record and report excessive rail movement and angle differential to prevent a train from derailing. The device may be spring-loaded and light-weight. The device may include a microprocessor, sensors, and a display. The device may be installed on the rail. The device may sense an approaching train, automatically turn on the device, detect the train speed, and measure the angle differential, the real-time displacement, and the maximum/minimum displacement between the two rails while the train is operating over the rail at all speeds. The device measures and records the separation and angle differential of the rail to ensure the rail does not exceed separation that could derail the train.
Seidl (US 6164600 A) - Device for detecting the positions of pivotable parts of a rail switch, such as, e.g., tongue rails (1, 2) by at least one sensor designed as a continuous distance sensor (4,5,6,7), wherein the sensor output is connected to a circuit arrangement (10) for two separate evaluations, the first evaluation being configured as a distance evaluation and the second evaluation being configured as a function control of the sensor, as well as a method for evaluating signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648