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
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 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hase et al. (JP 2006-258494 A).
Regrading claim 30, Hase et al. discloses a method for detecting oxidation (i.e., inherently, since oxidation is the fundamental anodic process that drives electrolytic corrosion) of a rail (element 1, Fig. 1) of a track, the method comprising: receiving a first signal (i.e., first detection signal H1, Fig. 1) representing a measurement of a first portion of a current through the rail of the track; receiving a second signal (i.e., second detection signal H2, Fig. 1) representing a measurement of a second portion of the current through the rail of the track; comparing the measurement of the first portion of the current and the measurement of the second portion of the current (see Abstract); determining, based on the comparison, a status of the oxidation (i.e., inherently, since oxidation is the fundamental anodic process that drives electrolytic corrosion) (see Abstract); and generating and transmitting a signal representing the status of the oxidation (i.e., inherently, since oxidation is the fundamental anodic process that drives electrolytic corrosion) (see Abstract).
Regrading claim 37, Hase et al. discloses a controller (element 8, Fig. 1) for detecting oxidation (i.e., inherently, since oxidation is the fundamental anodic process that drives electrolytic corrosion) of a rail (element 1, Fig. 1) of a track, the controller configured to perform operations comprising: receiving a first signal (i.e., first detection signal H1, Fig. 1) representing a measurement of a first portion of a current through the rail of the track; receiving a second signal (i.e., second detection signal H2, Fig. 1) representing a measurement of a second portion of the current through the rail of the track; comparing the measurement of the first portion of the current and the measurement of the second portion of the current (see Abstract); determining, based on the comparison, a status of the oxidation (i.e., inherently, since oxidation is the fundamental anodic process that drives electrolytic corrosion) (see Abstract); and generating and transmitting a signal representing the status of the oxidation (i.e., inherently, since oxidation is the fundamental anodic process that drives electrolytic corrosion) (see Abstract).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase et al. (JP 2006-258494 A) in view of Polivka et al. (US 9,162,691).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, even assuming, arguendo without conceding, that Hase et al. does not disclose a Hall effect sensor or a current transformer, Polivka et al. shows that these features are well known in the art. Polivka et al. discloses a system, wherein the sensors include a Hall effect sensor or a current transformer for generating the signal (see col. 9, lines 38-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as improved current detection accuracy.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase et al. (JP 2006-258494 A) in view of Teng et al. (WO 2019/136321 A1).
Regarding claim 34, although Hase et al. does not appear to disclose wireless electrical communication, Teng et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art. Teng et al. discloses a system, wherein the controller (element 701, Fig. 7) is in wireless electrical communication with the sensors (elements 710, 720, 730, Fig. 7), and wirelessly transmitting the signals to the controller (see par. [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Utilizing wireless electrical communications improves reliability of signal transmission from the sensors by avoiding problems, such as broken wired connections, associated with wired electrical communications.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cowan et al. (US 2,889,514) discloses a rail flaw detector mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-29 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for allowance of claim 21 is the inclusion of a controller affixed to the rail car and in electrical communication with the first pair of sensors and the second pair of sensors, the controller configured to: receive, from the first pair of sensors, a first signal representing a measurement of the first portion of the current; receive, from the second pair of sensors, a second signal representing a measurement of the second portion of the current; compare the measurement of the first portion of the current and the measurement of the second portion of the current; determine, based on the comparison, a status of the oxidation; and generate and transmit a signal representing the status of the oxidation. These limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 22-29 have been found allowable due to their dependencies upon claim 21.
No art rejection has been found for a prior art rejection of claims 31, 35, 36, and 38-40 at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 30 and 37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
5/31/2026
Prosecution Insights