DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 8 and 9-20 are 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 8 recites the limitation "the indication of the status of the switch device found to be bad" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to depend from claim 7 to provide antecedent basis for the bad status indication.
Claim 9 recites in the preamble a “system for determining a status of retarder devices” but makes no further mention of “retarder devices” within the claim. Rather, the claim is directed to determining the status of a switch device, instead of a retarder device. Examiner suggests replacing “retarder” with “switch”. Claims 10-16 are additionally rejected as indefinite based on the dependency on rejected claim 9.
Claim 17 recites in the preamble a “computer-based tool for determining a status of retarder devices” but makes no further mention of “retarder devices” within the claim. Rather, the claim is directed to determining the status of a switch device, instead of a retarder device. Examiner suggests replacing “retarder” with “switch”. Claims 18-20 are additionally rejected as indefinite based on the dependency on rejected claim 17.
Examiner notes that when reading the preamble of claims 9 and 17 in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of being “for determining a status of retarder devices” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
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) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 2014/0312181 A1) in view of Logan et al. (US 2008/0154692 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Duan teaches a method of determining a status of switch devices
compiling a plurality of switch events associated with a switch (Para. [0040]) (Fig. 2)
actual measurements associated with the switch device during each switch event of the plurality of switch events (Para. [0041]) (Fig. 3A):
utilization metrics including measurements associated with a usage of the switch device (Para. [0055]) (Fig. 6); and
failure metrics including indications of failure events incurred during one or more switch events of the plurality of switch events (Para. [0045], [0046] and [0052]) (Fig. 7C);
generating a set of deviation metrics (305) associated with the switch device based on the plurality of switch events associated with the switch device (Para. [0071]) (Fig. 3A);
applying thresholding analysis (309) to the set of deviation metrics associated with the switch device to determine a status of the switch device (Para. [0081]) (Fig. 3A); and
generating a corrective action signal including one or more of:
an indication of the status (327) of the switch device (Para. [0094-0095]) (Fig. 3B); and
a corrective action (405) to be taken on the switch device (Para. [0096]) (Fig. 4).
Duan does not specifically teach that the switch is in a classification yard. However, Logan teaches a system and method for rail yard process monitoring, wherein in classification yards (Para. [0005]), the work tasks, such as switching, are tracked in a database using metrics for later analysis (Para. [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Duan to use the switch, and the associated switch monitoring method, in a classification yard, such as the one taught by Duan, in order to monitor switch functions within a classification yard with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Duan further teaches the method, wherein generating the set of deviation metrics associated with the switch device includes generating one or more of:
a set of throw time (“switch pulling”) differences associated with the switch device (Para. [0048-0049]) (Figs. 7A-7C); and
a set of utilization metrics associated with the switch device (Para. [0055]) (Fig. 6).
Referring to Claim 3: Duan further teaches the method, wherein generating the set of throw time differences associated with the switch device includes:
calculating, for each switch event in the plurality of switch events associated with the switch device, a throw time difference by calculating a difference between an expected throw time associated with a respective switch event and the actual throw time measured at the switch device during the respective switch event (Para. [0066]) (Fig. 3A); and
aggregating each calculated throw time difference for each switch event into the set of throw time differences associated with the switch device (Para. [0070]) (Fig. 3A).
Referring to Claim 4: Duan further teaches the method, wherein applying thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics associated with the switch device includes applying one or more of a set of time differential rules to the set of throw time (“switch pulling”) differences associated with the switch device (Para. [0048-0049]) (Figs. 7A-7C), wherein the set of time differential rules includes one or more of:
a first time differential rule specifying that the status of the switch device is based on whether a threshold percentage of the set of throw time differences associated with the switch device is outside a range defined by plus or minus a time threshold;
a second time differential rule specifying that the status of the switch device is based on whether an average of the set of throw time differences associated with the switch device is within a range defined by plus or minus an average threshold (Para. [0055]) (Fig. 6) (see also Para. [0081] and Fig. 3A);
a third time differential rule specifying that the status of the switch device is based on whether a spread range of throw time values within a middle percentage of a set of throw time values associated with the switch device is less than a spread threshold, wherein the middle percentage of the set of throw time values is defined by a range of throw time values including a top percentile threshold of the set of throw time values and a bottom percentile threshold of the set of throw time values; and
a combination time differential rule that includes a weighted combination of the results of one or more of the first time differential rule, the second time differential rule, and the third time differential rule.
Referring to Claim 6: Duan further teaches the method, wherein applying the thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics associated with the switch device to determine the status of the switch device includes:
obtaining a percentage result for the switch device (Para. [0084] and Para. [0086], last sentence), the percentage result indicating a percentage status of the switch device (Para. [0083-0086]) (Fig. 3B).
Duan teaches analyzing the deviation metrics through a kernel density function to determine the status of the switch device, the kernel density function producing a percentage result.
Regarding the system of claims 9-12 and 14, note that the operation of the method of claims 1-4 and 6, respectively, by the computing system of Duan, inherently requires the system of claims 9-11 and 14.
Regarding the computer based tool of claims 17-19, note that the operation of the method of claims 1, 2 and 4, respectively, by the computing system of Duan, inherently requires the computer based tool of claims 17-19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 16 and 20 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 claims and if all claim objections and rejections in view of 35 USC § 112(b) are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20, Duan fails to teach any of the first through fourth utilization rules. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Duan to satisfy one of these four utilization rules.
Regarding claims 7 and 15 and depending claim 16, Duan fails to teach flagging the status with one or more of bad, warning or good, as recited in claims 7 and 15. While Duan teaches diagnosing different phases for the pulling of switches, the third phase involving repair or replacement (Para. [0096]), Duan fails to teach the claimed flagging, and Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Duan to satisfy the claimed flagging limitations.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references relate to retarders and switch monitoring:
Kubala et al. (US 4,610,206) teaches a micro controlled classification yard, wherein in classification yards, the switches (159) and retarders (141, 145) communicate with a central yard controller (100) (Col. 10, line 61 - Col. 11, lines 25) (Fig. 2).
Hawthorne (US 2004/0102878 A1) teaches a method and apparatus of monitoring a railroad hump yard, the switches (24) and retarders (22) communicate with a central yard controller (36) (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights