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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Claims 1-13 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 07/09/2026. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Claims contain outstanding 112(b) rejections. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites, “the optical sensor device is configured to according to a light stripe method…” it appears that the claim should read, “the optical sensor device is configured to operate according to a light stripe method…” and the word “operates” was amended to be removed entirely instead of changing the plural recitation.
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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 10796192 B2).
Regarding claim 1: Fernandez teaches a rail for a rail vehicle track, wherein the rail has a longitudinal extent, wherein an identification mark which is composed of at least eight symbols, is applied along the longitudinal extent of the rail on an inner side and/or an outer side of the rail (Fig.4B and Col.2, lines 64-67), uniquely identifying the rail (Col.3, lines 4-13) and the identification mark having an error-detecting property to ensure that incorrect reading of the identification mark is ascertained (Col.9, lines 3-8).
Fernandez teaches the claimed invention except for symbols having at least one partial length of 0.15 meters. It would have been obvious matter of design choice for the symbols to have at least one partial length of 0.15 meters, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 2: Fernandez teaches the claimed invention except for the identification mark being arranged at least twice along the longitudinal extent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the identification mark twice along the longitudinal extent, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 4: Fernandez further teaches the rail for a rail vehicle track as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identification mark is composed of a plurality of symbols, which are applied on different faces in the longitudinal extent of the rail (Col.2, line 64-Col.3, line 2).
Regarding claim 5: Fernandez further teaches the rail for a rail vehicle track as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identification mark on a face along the longitudinal extent is composed of symbols lying above one another (Fig.4B).
Regarding claim 6: Fernandez further teaches the rail for a rail vehicle track as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identification mark is configured to be readable both in a forward direction and in a backward direction (Col.4, lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 7: Fernandez further teaches the rail for a rail vehicle track as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identification mark consists of three-dimensional symbols and/or of symbols with a different color and/or fluorescent or reflective color (Col.3, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 8: Fernandez teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the identification mark extends along a length of at least 3 m in the longitudinal extent. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to extend the identification mark along a length of at least 3 m in the longitudinal extent, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9: Fernandez further teaches the rail for a rail vehicle track as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identification mark is applied both on the inner side and on the outer side of the rail (Col.2, line 67).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Cross (EP 0165048 A2).
Regarding claim 3: Fernandez does not teach wherein the error-detecting property is configured as a Hamming code, a triplicate code or a parity bit.
However, Cross teaches the use of a Hamming code or a parity bit within railway information processing (Pg.17, lines 27-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rail as in Fernandez with a code used as in Cross to allow identification in the presence of errors with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Staab et al. (US 20220266882 A1).
Regarding claim 10: Fernandez further teaches an apparatus for identifying a rail as claimed in claim 1, comprising, an optical sensor device (120; Fig.1), an evaluation device (114; Fig.1 and Col.4, lines 46-49), an apparatus for application onto a rail vehicle (118; Fig.1), wherein the optical sensor device is configured to record the identification mark on the rail only during a movement along the rail, the optical sensor device being configured to transmit a multiplicity of recorded signals to the evaluation device during the movement along the rail, the evaluation device being configured to identify the identification mark of the rail with the aid of the multiplicity of recorded signals (Col.3, lines 44-60 and Col.4, lines 46-67). Fernandez does not teach a speed recording device configured to record the speed of the rail vehicle and aid in the identification of the identification mark.
However, Staab teaches a speed recording device, configured to record the speed of the rail vehicle (Para.[0101], lines 11-17) and identifying information with the aid of the speed of the rail vehicle (Para.[0101], lines 11-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus as in Fernandez with the input of the rail vehicle speed to track speeds among different track locations for maintenance records with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11: Fernandez further teaches the apparatus for identifying a rail as claimed in claim 10, wherein the optical sensor device is configured to operate according to a light stripe method in order to record three-dimensional symbols (Col.3, lines 56-60 and Col.4, lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 12: Fernandez does not teach the optical sensor device having a sampling rate of at least 1000 measurements per second.
However, Staab teaches an optical sensor device having a sampling rate of at least 1000 measurements per second (Para.[0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Fernandez with the high sampling rate of Staab to provide increased sensor accuracy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Fernandez further teaches a method for identifying a rail as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising recording with an optical sensor device the identification mark on the rail while moving in the longitudinal extent of the rail (Col.3, lines 44-48 and 56-60), transmitting signals recorded by the optical sensor device to an evaluation device, and identifying with the evaluation device the identification mark based on the recorded signals (Col.4, lines 46-52). Fernandez does not teach the aid of a rate of movement of the optical sensor device in the longitudinal extent of the rail.
However, Staab teaches identifying information with the aid of a rate of movement of the optical sensor device in the longitudinal extent of the rail (Para.[0101], lines 11-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as in Fernandez with the input of the rail vehicle speed to track speeds among different track locations for maintenance records with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fernandez fails to teach uniquely identifying the rail, Examiner submits that the use of markers used to denote different sections of railroad tracks (Col.3, lines 7-9) utilized in conjunction with the system identifiers and corresponding location information (Col.5, lines 7-11) can broadly be considered as uniquely identifying the rail.
Further, concerning Applicants argument concerning Fernandez failing to teach “an error-detecting property to ensure that incorrect reading of the identification mark is ascertained”, Examiner submits that the system taught by Fernandez includes “error detection” as stated within Col. 9, lines 3-4.
Conclusion
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 HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
