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 § 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(s) 19 & 30 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.
Regarding claim 19 the limitation “the infrastructure facility” is unclear because it depends on claim 17 which introduces an infrastructure facility as an optional component (either an infrastructure facility or a second rail vehicle). It is unclear if this infrastructure facility is necessarily present for claim 19 and if not then is the limitation of claim 19 pertaining to the facility in effect in any way. Amending the claim to positively affirm the presence of the infrastructure facility would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 30 the limitation “travelling in moving spatial distances” is unclear in that this phrase cannot be understood. Amending claim 30 to rephrase this limitation to more clearly express the meaning would overcome this rejection.
All claims are examined as best understood.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-20, 22-25, & 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christoph (DE 102013101927 A1).
Regarding claim 17 Christoph teaches a method for safely operating a rail traffic system, the method comprising the following steps: collecting first rail traffic information correlating with a state variable of the rail traffic system (either FIG. 1-2: 5; paragraph 33, lines 7-13; determining that 5 is passing 9; or FIG. 1-2: 8; paragraph 32, lines 7-17); transmitting second rail traffic information correlating with the state variable of the rail traffic system between at least one of a first rail vehicle and an infrastructure facility or the first rail vehicle and a second rail vehicle (FIG. 1-2: 22; paragraph 33); determining a comparison result on a basis of the first rail traffic information and the second rail traffic information (paragraph 33, lines 18-19); subjecting at least one of the first rail traffic information or the second rail traffic information to a plausibility check using the comparison result (page 16, lines 1-4); and controlling the rail traffic system using a result of the plausibility check (paragraph 33, final line).
Regarding claim 18 Christoph teaches collecting the first rail traffic information by way of the first rail vehicle (FIG. 1: 5) and transmitting the second rail traffic information to the first rail vehicle (FIG. 1: 22 is bidirectional with the first vehicle).
Regarding claim 19 Christoph teaches collecting the first rail traffic information by way of the infrastructure facility (FIG. 2: 9) and transmitting the second rail traffic information to the infrastructure facility (FIG. 1-2: 22 is bidirectional with the infrastructure facility 7).
Regarding claim 20 Christoph teaches that at least one of the first rail traffic information or the second rail traffic information is based on a sensor- detected measuring value (FIG. 1-2: 8).
Regarding claim 22 Christoph teaches controlling the rail traffic system by means of at least one item of rail traffic information modified using the comparison result (paragraph 33, final line).
Regarding claim 23 Christoph teaches that calibrating a collection of at least one of the first rail traffic information or the second rail traffic information using the comparison result (paragraph 15 teaches comparing first rail traffic information from the back of the train with second rail traffic information from the front of the train).
Regarding claim 24 Christoph teaches controlling rail vehicles of different control capacity classes in the same rail traffic system in different ways (paragraph 33, a train without full control capacity would not have the entrance to etcs level 3 area 11 cleared for it).
Regarding claims 25 & 27 Christoph teaches classifying the at least one rail vehicle in a higher control capacity class due to a control of the rail traffic system using the result of the plausibility check and classifying the at least one rail vehicle depending on the result of the plausibility check (see claim 24, the plausibility check is part of clearing the entrance).
Regarding claim 28 Christoph teaches transferring at least one rail vehicle based on a control capacity class thereof to a highly utilized rail line section to increase a traffic capacity (paragraph 33, final line, tracks 10 & 11 may be highly utilized and thus increase traffic capacity).
Regarding claim 29 Christoph teaches that the step of controlling the rail traffic system using the result of the plausibility check comprises determining at least one of travel parameter ranges to be complied with or rail line sections that can be travelled on (paragraph 33, final line).
Regarding claim 30 Christoph teaches that controlling the rail traffic system is based at least in part on travelling in moving spatial distances (the first and second rail traffic informations are based on the positions of the train as it moves).
Regarding claim 31 Christoph teaches that controlling the infrastructure facility due to a control command of the at least one rail vehicle (paragraph 33, final line).
Regarding claim 32 Christoph teaches a rail traffic system, comprising: an infrastructure facility (FIG. 1: 7); and at least one rail vehicle (FIG. 1: 100); and wherein at least one of said infrastructure facility or said at least one rail vehicle includes a control unit for carrying out the method according to claim 17 (paragraph 33).
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.
Claim(s) 21 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph (DE 102013101927 A1).
Regarding claim 21 Christoph does not explicitly teach conducting the plausibility check at regular time intervals. However, official notice is taken that conducting safety checks at regular intervals is commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively or additionally conducted the plausibility check at regular time intervals in order to enhance safety.
Regarding claim 26 Christoph does not explicitly teach classifying the at least one rail vehicle in a higher control capacity class due to a continuous transmission of the second rail traffic information. However, official notice is taken that continuous transmission of data is commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the data continuously to enhance safety by avoiding gaps in information.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach rail systems of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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 J Morano IV can be reached on (571) 272-6684. 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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights