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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,889,395. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the pending claims are very similar to the limitations of the claims in the patent.
Regarding Claim 1, the pending claim teaches “at least two” wireless communication channels as opposed to “plural”, but these two terms have the same meaning so this is not a difference. The only real difference is that the pending claim does not teach the second wireless receiver in a different vehicle. Other than this difference, all the other limitations are the same.
The above also applies for claims 10 and 18, which are equally similar to claims 9 and 16 of the patent.
Claim 2 is the same as claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 3 is the same as claim 3 of the patent.
Claim 4 is the same as claim 4 of the patent.
Claim 5 is the same as claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 8 is the same as claim 6 of the patent.
Claim 9 is the same as claim 7 of the patent.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 12 of the patent.
Claim 13 is similar to claim 13 of the patent.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 14 of the patent.
Claim 19 is similar to claim 17 of the patent.
Claim 20 is similar to claim 18 of the patent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeter et al. (US 2010/0130124) in view of Malackowski et al. (US 2019/0142525).
Referring to Claim 1, Teeter teaches a method comprising:
communicating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel (see paragraph 57 which shows HOT/EOT channels communicating in parallel format), between a first wireless transceiver and a second wireless transceiver, the at least two wireless communication channels operating at different radio carrier frequencies, and wherein the first wireless transceiver is part of a first vehicle (see paragraph 32 which shows DP and HOT/EOT communicating on different channels and fig. 2 which shows a HOT transceiver 49 and a EOT transceiver 44); and
transmitting, by the first wireless transceiver, common information in parallel on the at least two wireless communication channels to the second wireless transceiver (see paragraph 57 which shows common information transmitted to the other cars of the train in parallel data format and paragraph 32 which shows DP and HOT/EOT communicating on different channels)
Teeter does not teach activating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and deactivating the at least two wireless communication channels. Malackowski teaches activating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and deactivating the at least two wireless communication channels (see paragraph 119 which shows the activation and deactivation of trackers which have RF transmitters 74 and paragraph 131 which shows the activated tracker transmitting common information on two different channels using an antenna diversity scheme which is known in the art to be transmission of data in multiple channels in parallel and since the trackers transmit the multiple channels, deactivating the trackers also deactivates the communication channels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Malackowski to the device of Teeter in order to provide a more reliable simulcast or diversity communications system in vehicles to where proper operability ensures the safety of all aboard.
Referring to Claim 10, Teeter teaches a system comprising:
a first wireless transceiver configured to be operably disposed onboard a first vehicle and to communicate at least two wireless communication channels in parallel (see paragraph 57 which shows HOT/EOT channels communicating in parallel format) between a first wireless transceiver and a second wireless transceiver, the at least two wireless communication channels operating at different radio carrier frequencies (see paragraph 32 which shows DP and HOT/EOT communicating on different channels and fig. 2 which shows a HOT transceiver 49 and a EOT transceiver 44); and
the first wireless transceiver further configured to transmit common information in parallel on the at least two wireless communication channels to the second wireless transceiver (see paragraph 57 which shows common information transmitted to the other cars of the train in parallel data format and paragraph 32 which shows DP and HOT/EOT communicating on different channels).
Teeter does not teach activating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and deactivating the at least two wireless communication channels following transmission of the common information in parallel on the at least two wireless communication channels. Malackowski teaches activating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and deactivating the at least two wireless communication channels following transmission of the common information in parallel on the at least two wireless communication channels (see paragraph 119 which shows the activation and deactivation of trackers which have RF transmitters 74 and paragraph 131 which shows the activated tracker transmitting common information on two different channels using an antenna diversity scheme which is known in the art to be transmission of data in multiple channels in parallel and since the trackers transmit the multiple channels, deactivating the trackers also deactivates the communication channels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Malackowski to the device of Teeter in order to provide a more reliable simulcast or diversity communications system in vehicles to where proper operability ensures the safety of all aboard.
Referring to Claim 18, Teeter teaches a system comprising:
a wireless head-of-train (HOT) transceiver configured to be operably disposed onboard a first rail vehicle and to communicate at least two wireless communication channels in parallel between the HOT transceiver and a wireless transceiver that is part of a remote device (see paragraph 57 which shows HOT/EOT channels communicating in parallel format), each of the at least two wireless communication channels operating at a different radio carrier frequency (see paragraph 32 which shows DP and HOT/EOT communicating on different channels and fig. 2 which shows a HOT transceiver 49 and a EOT transceiver 44), the HOT transceiver further configured to transmit common information in parallel on the at least two wireless communication channels to the wireless transceiver of the remote device (see paragraph 57 which shows common information transmitted to the other cars of the train in parallel data format and paragraph 32 which shows DP and HOT/EOT communicating on different channels).
Teeter does not teach the HOT transceiver configured to activate at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and further configured to deactivate the at least two wireless communication channels. Malackowski teaches the HOT transceiver configured to activate at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and further configured to deactivate the at least two wireless communication channels (see paragraph 119 which shows the activation and deactivation of trackers which have RF transmitters 74 and paragraph 131 which shows the activated tracker transmitting common information on two different channels using an antenna diversity scheme which is known in the art to be transmission of data in multiple channels in parallel and since the trackers transmit the multiple channels, deactivating the trackers also deactivates the communication channels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Malackowski to the device of Teeter in order to provide a more reliable simulcast or diversity communications system in vehicles to where proper operability ensures the safety of all aboard.
Referring to Claim 2, Teeter also teaches receiving, by the second wireless transceiver, the common information transmitted in parallel on the plural wireless communication channels (see paragraph 57 which shows the HOT/EOT message embedded with the DP message sent in parallel format to the EOT transceiver).
Referring to Claims 3 and 11, Teeter also teaches changing one or more of a throttle setting or a brake setting of the first vehicle using the common information that is transmitted (see paragraph 57 which shows an emergency brake application message).
Referring to Claims 4 and 12, Teeter also teaches the common information as first information, and further comprising: subsequently activating only one but not multiple of the wireless communication channels; and transmitting, by the first wireless transceiver to the second wireless transceiver, second information on the one wireless communication channel that is activated (see paragraph 13 which shows the HOT device transmitting status requests over the HOT/EOT channel which is different information transmitted on a frequent basis including after the emergency brake message is transmitted and over specifically the HOT/EOT channel).
Referring to Claims 5 and 13, Teeter also teaches the vehicles included in a rail vehicle system (see locomotive in fig. 1), the first wireless transceiver is included in a head-of-train (HOT) unit (see HOT transceiver 49 in fig. 2), the second wireless transceiver is included in an end-of-train (EOT) unit (see EOT transceiver 44 in fig. 2), and transmitting the common information in parallel on the plural wireless communication channels includes transmitting the common information from the HOT unit to the EOT unit (see paragraph 57 which shows the HOT/EOT message embedded with the DP message sent in parallel format to the EOT transceiver).
Referring to Claims 6 and 14, Teeter also teaches the second wireless transceiver part of a back-office computer (see paragraph 36 which shows the EOT transceiver handing identification information of the locomotives which signifies the device as part of a back-office computer).
Referring to Claims 7 and 15, Teeter also teaches the first vehicle part of a first consist of a vehicle system and the second wireless transceiver part of a second vehicle that is part of a second consist of the vehicle system (see paragraph 35 which shows the brake system of both the HOT and EOT vehicles connected to the transceivers of both vehicles which implies both vehicles part of a consist of both vehicle systems).
Referring to Claim 16, Teeter also teaches the first vehicle as a first automobile, and the second wireless transceiver part of a second vehicle that is a second automobile (see locomotives 14 and 12A in fig. 1 each with its own transceivers 29 and further noting that since those locomotives are self propelled vehicles with wheels, they are by definition, automobiles).
Referring to Claim 20, Teeter also teaches the HOT transceiver is configured to subsequently transmit additional information to the EOT transceiver via a single wireless communication channel of the plural wireless communication channels (see paragraph 13 which shows the HOT device transmitting status requests over the HOT/EOT channel which is different information transmitted on a frequent basis including after the emergency brake message is transmitted and over specifically the HOT/EOT channel).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeter and Malackowski in view of Jordan et al. (US 2012/0142397).
Referring to Claims 9 and 17, the combination of Teeter and Malackowski does not teach the different radio carrier frequencies including a center frequency of 450 MHz and a cellular telephone frequency. Jordan teaches the different radio carrier frequencies including a center frequency of 450 MHz and acellular telephone frequency (see paragraph 19 which shows antennas on a moving vehicle communicating on 450 MHz and on cellular frequencies). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Jordan to the modified device of Teeter and Malackowski in order to expand the capabilities of in-vehicle communication units.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeter and Malackowski in view of Su et al. (US 2014/0086209).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination of Teeter and Malackowski does not teach the activating plural wireless communication channels in parallel including switching at least one of the first wireless transceiver or the second wireless transceiver from a low power, stand-by, or sleep mode to an active or fully operational mode via a carrier frequency associated with at least one of the at least two wireless communication channels. Su teaches the activating plural wireless communication channels in parallel including switching at least one of the first wireless transceiver or the second wireless transceiver from a low power, stand-by, or sleep mode to an active or fully operational mode via a carrier frequency associated with at least one of the at least two wireless communication channels (see paragraph 41 which shows parallel communication of different frequency channels with periodic waking from sleep mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Su to the modified device of Teeter and Malackowski in order to conserve power while using in-vehicle communication.
Referring to Claim 19, Su teaches the HOT transceiver is configured to deactivate the plural wireless communication channels by entering a low power, stand-by or sleep mode (see paragraph 41 which shows parallel communication of different frequency channels with the entering into a DRX mode or sleep state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Su to the modified device of Teeter and Malackowski in order to conserve power while using in-vehicle communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, the applicant’s remarks stated that a Terminal Disclaimer was filed. However, no Terminal Disclaimer is shown to actually have been filed, much less approved. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection is maintained.
The applicant argued that Teeter does not teach activating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel, between a first wireless transceiver and a second wireless transceiver. The above rejection does not state that Teeter teaches “activating” at least two wireless communication channels, but instead teaches communicating at least two wireless channels. Paragraph 57 of Teeter clearly teaches communications from a HOT device to a remote device in parallel and paragraph 32 clearly teaches communications in two different channels. No specifics are given in the claims as to the location of the second wireless transceiver so this means that the second wireless transceiver can be a device on a remote vehicle. In addition, since paragraphs 32 and 57 of Teeter teaches the same message transmitted, it is clear that data in the different channels do not differ and therefore, the information is common information.
In either case, Malackowski is introduced to more clearly show the process of
activating at least two wireless communication channels in parallel and deactivating the at least two wireless communication channels. Paragraph 119 shows the activating and deactivating of the trackers, which transmits the signals and paragraph 131 shows the activated tracker transmitting common information on two different channels using an antenna diversity scheme which is known in the art to be transmission of data in multiple channels in parallel and since the trackers transmit the multiple channels, deactivating the trackers also deactivates the communication channels. If a skilled artisan were to implement the tracker devices of Malackowski to any locomotive, much less the locomotive of Teeter, the properly combined devices would operate just as the teachings of the independent claims (1, 10, and 18) operate. The Malackowski reference adds the “diversity” concept to the communications device of Teeter and vastly improves the device of Teeter by adding the concept where the same data is known to be transmitted from one transceiver to another over different frequencies (taught in pg. 131) for the same of ensuring data is transmitted in a reliable way.
If the train sends a braking signal to the back, you want to ensure best possible chance for the signal to be successfully received. That is what Diversity is all about in wireless communications.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, the cited portion of Teeter (paragraph 13) is explained to show that the status request is transmitted after the emergency brake message, which is the common information over multiple channels in parallel. This means that the status request is transmitted subsequent to the transmitting of common information in parallel. For the above reasons, Teeter teaches claims 4 and 12.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, the term “back-office computer” is not properly defined in the applicant’s specification, nor is it a term widely known in the art. Therefore, the term “back-office computer” can technically be defined as a computer in the back or the end of the train, or a computer which handles identification information.
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 17, and 19, the rejections of the other claims are maintained and therefore, the rejections to claims 8, 9, 17, and 19 are also maintained since there are no further arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights