DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Since the examiner has applied new grounds of rejection, this Office Action is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/26/2025 with respect to the previous prior art rejections of the dependent claim 8 and the independent claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made that relies on DE 102014113572 A1 (Scheffer) in view of AU 2003203693 A1 (Downer) [e.g., the examiner agrees with applicant’s remarks concerning the claimed control unit, in particular that the prior art monitoring computer in combination with the external display device per Scheffer does not reasonably correspond to the claimed control unit, since the external display device per Scheffer is not described as enabling a control over the sensor unit, monitoring computer, etc.].
To elaborate, the newly cited prior art reference Downer remedies the aforementioned deficiency per Scheffer, such that Downer (Figures 1-6) teaches an analogous railway vehicle (5) (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with title, abstract), and wherein the driver’s cabin (10) is provided with at least one interactive display device/control unit/touch screen computer (650) via which a driver or guard of the railway vehicle may operate a corresponding CCTV system interface (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with page 8, lines 14-21 and page 15, lines 1-20) [e.g., “The electrical locker 72 has mounted on its front face a monitor 650, which in use is coupled to close circuit television (CCTV) cameras that are mounted in predetermined positions within the passenger carrying portions of the train. In use the guard can monitor the passengers using this screen. This screen is preferably a touch screen display similar to that used on the driver's and guard's desks, and is operable by the guard in order to operate the CCTV system interface”]; [e.g., a CCTV system interface fundamentally includes one or more cameras and associated monitoring computers]; [e.g., the aforementioned functionality describing the remote operation of a well-known CCTV system interface presumably includes (or can include) and/or encompasses the ability to switch the disclosed cameras and/or associated monitoring computers on and off]; [e.g., the signals that would otherwise just be sent from the monitoring computer and received by a non-interactive external display device are instead sent to one or more interactive display devices/control units/touch screen computers], and such that the claimed invention(s) is/are fairly rendered obvious as discussed per the detailed rejection below.
With respect to applicant’s request to arrange a telephonic interview, note that a call was made to applicant’s representative, Stephen Finch, on 02/27/2026, to discuss matters concerning the instant application [e.g., said matters primarily being with regard to the new grounds of rejection], however, Mr. Finch declined to schedule a telephonic interview until after having had time to fully consider the new grounds of rejection. See detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding the independent claim 9, the claim is directed toward a computer-implemented method for monitoring a door, said method comprising scanning an area associated with the door using a sensor unit, sending a signal from the sensor unit, processing the signal by a monitoring computer to form at least one other signal, and sending the at least one other signal to a control unit. In other words, the method generally comprises evaluating data and processing said data with respect to the environment of a commonplace railway vehicle.
Evaluating data and processing said data are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. The abstract idea falls into the category of abstract ideas of “mental processes” since it involves an evaluation that could be performed in the human mind [e.g., evaluating data, processing data, and sending signals constitutes a fundamental mental process and cognitive activity performed by the human mind]. The additional elements recited in the claim, such as a door, a sensor/scanner, a computer, and/or a control unit, while being beyond the judicial exception, are all individually known, conventional elements of a commonplace railway vehicle.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps (or processes) of evaluating data and processing said data only generally link the use of the judicial exception to the environment of a commonplace railway vehicle. Furthermore, there is no transformation or reduction of any railway vehicle component to a different state or thing [e.g., there is no transformation or reduction of any railway vehicle component to a different state or thing based on the respective enabling or blocking signals being processed and/or sent to the control unit]. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered as a whole with each of the additional elements, the claim(s) simply append(s) well-understood conventional components of a commonplace railway vehicle to the judicial exception with a high generality.
Regarding the dependent claims 10-11 and 16-18, the dependent claims 10-11 and 16-18 also do not recite any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea itself [e.g., claims 10-11 similarly generally involve evaluating data and processing said data]; [e.g., with regard to claims 10-11 and 16-18, there is still no transformation or reduction of any railway vehicle component to a different state or thing based on the signal(s) being sent, and limitations that provide for conventional elements of a computer (e.g., a program, a computer readable medium, etc.) do not constitute limitations that are beyond the abstract idea itself].
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a data link” twice. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how many distinct data links are being established in the claim [e.g., applicant’s specification and drawings only clearly indicate a single data link 9 (see Fig. 1-2)]; [e.g., separate and distinct data links are not clearly defined]; [e.g., should the latter recitation of a data link instead read “the data link”?].
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the data link” after two distinct recitations of “a data link”, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to which of the previously established data link limitations is being referenced, and/or as to how many distinct data links are being established in the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the claim [still] provides for both “a door opening” and “a door area”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to what necessarily distinguishes the aforementioned limitations from one another [e.g., there is no meaningful nor clear distinction between a door opening and a door area, and/or the boundaries intended to delineate the aforementioned limitation(s) from one another is/are not clear]; [e.g., the amendments further attempting to describe the door area would also be applicable to the door opening].
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The computer program product of claim 16 carried out on the monitoring computer of claim 1”. Firstly noting that claim 16 depends from claim 9, claim 17 is rendered indefinite such that the scope of the claim is unclear [e.g., considering that the method of claim 9 already defines “a monitoring computer”, it is not exactly clear as to what carrying out the computer program product on the monitoring computer of claim 1 necessarily entails]; [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to why claim 17 further refers to claim 1, instead of just referencing the monitoring computer of claim 9].
Claims 2-6, 10-11, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected due to dependency from one or more indefinite claims.
Note that notwithstanding the substantial outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/clarity issues in the claims, the examiner has still applied what appears to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention(s).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DE 102014113572 A1 (Scheffer) in view of AU 2003203693 A1 (Downer).
Regarding claim 1, Scheffer (Figures 1-4) teaches a railway vehicle (42) (see Fig. 4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0050]) [e.g., “The present invention relates to a door system for a public transport vehicle”]; [e.g., “Door systems are used primarily in rail and road vehicles”] comprising:
a door opening (44) and a door (22) configured to close the door opening (see Fig. 4 in conjunction with paragraph [0050]),
a sensor unit comprising a scanner (26) to scan in a contactless manner in three dimensions both an interior of the railway vehicle and an exterior of the railway vehicle (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0051]-[0053], [0058]) [e.g., “a door system according to the invention has a sensor unit which, in the area of the door opening, scans at least one exterior space of the vehicle into which the boarding aid extends, as well as the boarding aid itself, in a contactless three-dimensional manner”]; [e.g., “Advantageously, not only the outside space in front of the door opening but also the interior of the vehicle is scanned three-dimensionally”],
a drive comprising an actuation unit (described but not illustrated) to open and close the door (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraph [0026]) [e.g., the drive comprising an actuation unit defined and/or encompassed by the disclosed “door drive motor”],
a monitoring computer [e.g., an evaluation unit with a computer/processor and suitable software, especially when said sensor unit 26 comprises optical imaging monitoring and/or a video camera with a corresponding evaluation program] (described but not illustrated) which is connected to the sensor unit by a data link (implicit) (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0017], [0024]-[0026], [0058]-[0059]) [e.g., “the sensor unit contains an evaluation unit with a computer/processor and suitable software. Alternatively, the evaluation unit can also be located externally of the sensor unit”]; [e.g., “optical imaging monitoring can also be carried out, with corresponding evaluation software evaluating movements, shapes and speeds. For example, it is conceivable to use a video camera with a corresponding evaluation program”],
wherein at least a presence of passengers in the interior of the railway vehicle, a presence of passengers in the exterior of the railway vehicle, a closing state of the door and a presence of obstacles in the door opening can be detected by the sensor unit (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0023]-[0024], [0028], [0032], [0051]-[0053], [0057]-[0058]) [e.g., “a door system according to the invention has a sensor unit which, in the area of the door opening, scans at least one exterior space of the vehicle into which the boarding aid extends, as well as the boarding aid itself, in a contactless three-dimensional manner”]; [e.g., “Advantageously, not only the outside space in front of the door opening but also the interior of the vehicle is scanned three-dimensionally”]; [e.g., “Furthermore, the sensor unit 26 can be designed and aligned in such a way that not only the passenger compartment directly in the area of the door opening is monitored, but, for example, a significantly larger area on the outside of the vehicle 42 is included in the monitoring. This makes it possible to detect flows of people and their direction at an early stage and to react by opening or closing doors. The passenger compartment can be monitored only from the outside, only from the inside and preferably on both sides of the door”]; [e.g., “the sensor unit is linked to the control of the door or door leaf and is able to read the current door or door leaf position”]; [e.g., “If there is an obstacle in the monitored or scanned rooms, it will be reliably detected and the door will be closed or opened”]; [e.g., “the invention also provides for monitoring the relevant area within the moving boarding aid or door and by the sensor unit. When objects are detected within this area, a signal is generated, which can be used to stop or reverse the boarding aid or door”].
Scheffer fails to expressly teach a control unit which is connected to the monitoring computer by a data link, wherein the control unit comprises a switch unit configured to switch off and start the monitoring computer. Note that Scheffer does teach wherein the monitoring computer can be connected to an external display device in the driver’s cabin (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraph [0059]), but that it is not apparent as to whether the external display device facilitates control of the monitoring computer [e.g., such that the external display device comprises and/or defines a control unit].
However, Downer (Figures 1-6) teaches an analogous railway vehicle (5) (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with title, abstract), and wherein the driver’s cabin (10) is provided with at least one interactive display device/control unit/touch screen computer (650) via which a driver or guard of the railway vehicle may operate a corresponding CCTV system interface (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with page 8, lines 14-21 and page 15, lines 1-20) [e.g., “The electrical locker 72 has mounted on its front face a monitor 650, which in use is coupled to close circuit television (CCTV) cameras that are mounted in predetermined positions within the passenger carrying portions of the train. In use the guard can monitor the passengers using this screen. This screen is preferably a touch screen display similar to that used on the driver's and guard's desks, and is operable by the guard in order to operate the CCTV system interface”]; [e.g., a CCTV system interface fundamentally includes one or more cameras and associated monitoring computers]; [e.g., the aforementioned functionality describing the remote operation of a well-known CCTV system interface presumably includes (or can include) and/or encompasses the ability to switch the disclosed cameras and/or associated monitoring computers on and off].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly implement the aforementioned technical feature(s) into the railway vehicle per Scheffer as a modification [e.g., having the external display device described per paragraph [0059] of Scheffer configured as an interactive touch screen display/monitor/control unit, so that the system interface comprising the sensor unit 26 and/or associated evaluation unit can be remotely controlled by the driver or workers in the cabin of the railway vehicle], as suggested by Downer, in order to achieve one or more of enhanced operational efficiency, improved convenience, energy savings by allowing on-demand access, reduced bandwidth consumption, reduced data storage needs, and/or enhanced troubleshooting capabilities (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of enabling various system interfaces to be remotely controlled and/or operated) [e.g., a worker will not have to physically go to each camera and/or monitoring computer to operate, restart, and/or troubleshoot them if/when needed, the cameras and/or monitoring computers can be turned off when not needed to save energy, such as when there are no passengers in the area(s) being monitored, etc.].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Scheffer and Downer are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning railway vehicles, video cameras/sensing systems for detecting or monitoring passengers in a railway vehicle, techniques for transmitting video camera/sensing system data to a display in a cabin of the railway vehicle, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature(s) per Downer to the railway vehicle(s) per Scheffer, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed above, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space/ergonomic considerations, safety and/or security concerns, etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Regarding claim 2, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises (or can comprise) a camera as an optical sensor (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0017], [0024]-[0026], [0052], [0058]-[0059]). Scheffer fails to expressly teach a control unit comprising a display to display an image taken by the camera. Note that Scheffer does teach wherein the monitoring computer can be connected to an external display device in the driver’s cabin (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraph [0059]), but that it is not apparent as to whether the external display device facilitates control of the monitoring computer [e.g., such that the external display device comprises and/or defines a control unit].
However, Downer (Figures 1-6) teaches an analogous railway vehicle (5) (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with title, abstract), and wherein the driver’s cabin (10) is provided with at least one interactive display device/control unit/touch screen computer (650) via which a driver or guard of the railway vehicle may operate a corresponding CCTV system interface (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with page 8, lines 14-21 and page 15, lines 1-20) [e.g., “The electrical locker 72 has mounted on its front face a monitor 650, which in use is coupled to close circuit television (CCTV) cameras that are mounted in predetermined positions within the passenger carrying portions of the train. In use the guard can monitor the passengers using this screen. This screen is preferably a touch screen display similar to that used on the driver's and guard's desks, and is operable by the guard in order to operate the CCTV system interface”]; [e.g., a CCTV system interface fundamentally includes one or more cameras and associated monitoring computers]; [e.g., the monitor 650 defines an interactive display device/control unit/touch screen computer]; [e.g., the aforementioned functionality describing the remote operation of a well-known CCTV system interface presumably includes (or can include) and/or encompasses the ability to switch the disclosed cameras and/or associated monitoring computers on and off]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer fails to explicitly teach wherein the sensor unit and/or the drive only have a data connection or only a power connection.
However, opting for a specific number of data or power connections is a mere matter of routine design choice/consideration, and to the extent that it would have merely involved routine skill in the art to accordingly opt for a single data or power connection, if desired, for a particular application. Furthermore, to the extent that Scheffer fails to explicitly teach the aforementioned subject matter, it would have also been obvious to utilize only a single data or power connection in view of the context per Scheffer, so as to accordingly achieve a desired reduction in complexity and/or costs (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of utilizing and/or opting for less components, cabling, etc.) (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0005]-[0006]) [e.g., the context per Scheffer is describing the object(s) of the invention(s) with regards to minimizing the required amount of components, cabling, etc., so as to achieve a reduction in complexity and/or costs]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises (or can comprise) a detection sensor to detect a presence of a platform, a height of the platform, and a horizontal distance from the platform to the railway vehicle (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0058]) [e.g., “Ultrasonic sensors in step systems to measure the distance to the platform and its height”]; [e.g., “The invention is also suitable in conjunction with other sensor elements, for example ultrasonic sensors”]; [e.g., “it is also possible to determine the distance between the door opening and a platform in order to optimally extend the step or boarding aid”]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches wherein the sensor unit is configured to count passengers boarding and exiting the railway vehicle (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraph [0043]) [e.g., “By using three-dimensional scanning, not only the speed but also the number of passing passengers can be determined, making passenger counting easy”]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the sensor unit comprises (or can comprise) a motion sensor to determine whether the railway vehicle is in motion (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0002], [0008]-[0012], [0028]-[0030], [0058]-[0059]) [e.g., “optical imaging monitoring can also be carried out, with corresponding evaluation software evaluating movements, shapes and speeds. For example, it is conceivable to use a video camera with a corresponding evaluation program”]; [e.g., the movements being determined per the aforementioned excerpts are relative to the sensor unit, therefore the sensor unit is necessarily configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion]; [e.g., the interior and/or exterior areas being scanned include the vehicle itself, and in the specific case wherein the sensor unit comprises a video camera, one of ordinary skill can also reasonably infer that said sensor unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer fails to explicitly teach a second configuration including a door, door opening, drive comprising an actuation unit, and sensor unit comprising a scanner, of which are configured to operate in the same (or a substantially similar) manner as that of the first door, door opening, drive, and sensor unit.
However, the provision of adding multiples of the components per Scheffer that are configured to function in the same (or a substantially similar) manner would yield highly predictable results [e.g., the other doors of a multi-door rail vehicle would obviously function in the same (or a substantially similar) manner, and yield the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed above with regards to the respective components per claim 1]; [e.g., the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, which is not the case when adding the second configuration discussed above]; [e.g., also reference MPEP 2144.04; VI; B. Duplication of Parts]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Scheffer (Figures 1-4) teaches a computer-implemented method for monitoring a door (22) in a door opening (44) of a railway vehicle (42) (see Fig. 4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0024]-[0026], [0050], [0057]) [e.g., “The present invention relates to a door system for a public transport vehicle”]; [e.g., “Door systems are used primarily in rail and road vehicles”] comprising:
scanning an interior of the railway vehicle and an exterior of the railway vehicle in a contactless manner in three dimensions by a sensor unit (26) (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0051]-[0053], [0058]) [e.g., “a door system according to the invention has a sensor unit which, in the area of the door opening, scans at least one exterior space of the vehicle into which the boarding aid extends, as well as the boarding aid itself, in a contactless three-dimensional manner”]; [e.g., “Advantageously, not only the outside space in front of the door opening but also the interior of the vehicle is scanned three-dimensionally”];
sending a scanning signal from the sensor unit to a monitoring computer [e.g., an evaluation unit with a computer/processor and suitable software, especially when said sensor unit 26 comprises optical imaging monitoring and/or a video camera with a corresponding evaluation program] (described but not illustrated) (implicit) (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0017], [0024]-[0026], [0058]-[0059]) [e.g., “the sensor unit contains an evaluation unit with a computer/processor and suitable software. Alternatively, the evaluation unit can also be located externally of the sensor unit”]; [e.g., “optical imaging monitoring can also be carried out, with corresponding evaluation software evaluating movements, shapes and speeds. For example, it is conceivable to use a video camera with a corresponding evaluation program”]; and
processing the scanning signal by the monitoring computer to form an enabling signal or a blocking signal for the door (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0023]-[0024], [0028], [0032], [0051]-[0053], [0057]-[0058]) [e.g., “a door system according to the invention has a sensor unit which, in the area of the door opening, scans at least one exterior space of the vehicle into which the boarding aid extends, as well as the boarding aid itself, in a contactless three-dimensional manner”]; [e.g., “Advantageously, not only the outside space in front of the door opening but also the interior of the vehicle is scanned three-dimensionally”]; [e.g., “Furthermore, the sensor unit 26 can be designed and aligned in such a way that not only the passenger compartment directly in the area of the door opening is monitored, but, for example, a significantly larger area on the outside of the vehicle 42 is included in the monitoring. This makes it possible to detect flows of people and their direction at an early stage and to react by opening or closing doors. The passenger compartment can be monitored only from the outside, only from the inside and preferably on both sides of the door”]; [e.g., “the sensor unit is linked to the control of the door or door leaf and is able to read the current door or door leaf position”]; [e.g., “If there is an obstacle in the monitored or scanned rooms, it will be reliably detected and the door will be closed or opened”]; [e.g., “the invention also provides for monitoring the relevant area within the moving boarding aid or door and by the sensor unit. When objects are detected within this area, a signal is generated, which can be used to stop or reverse the boarding aid or door”].
Scheffer fails to expressly teach sending the enabling or blocking signal from the monitoring computer to a control unit based on a presence of objects or passengers in a door area corresponding to the area required for a door movement. Note that Scheffer does teach wherein the monitoring computer can be connected to an external display device in the driver’s cabin (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraph [0059]), but that it is not apparent as to whether the external display device facilitates control of the monitoring computer [e.g., such that the external display device comprises and/or defines a control unit].
However, Downer (Figures 1-6) teaches an analogous railway vehicle (5) (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with title, abstract), and wherein the driver’s cabin (10) is provided with at least one interactive display device/control unit/touch screen computer (650) via which a driver or guard of the railway vehicle may operate a corresponding CCTV system interface (see Fig. 1-6 in conjunction with page 8, lines 14-21 and page 15, lines 1-20) [e.g., “The electrical locker 72 has mounted on its front face a monitor 650, which in use is coupled to close circuit television (CCTV) cameras that are mounted in predetermined positions within the passenger carrying portions of the train. In use the guard can monitor the passengers using this screen. This screen is preferably a touch screen display similar to that used on the driver's and guard's desks, and is operable by the guard in order to operate the CCTV system interface”]; [e.g., a CCTV system interface fundamentally includes one or more cameras and associated monitoring computers]; [e.g., the signals that would otherwise just be sent from the monitoring computer and received by a non-interactive external display device are instead sent to one or more interactive display devices/control units/touch screen computers].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly implement the aforementioned technical feature(s) into the railway vehicle per Scheffer as a modification [e.g., having the external display device described per paragraph [0059] of Scheffer configured as an interactive touch screen display/monitor/control unit, so that the driver or workers in the cabin can take appropriate action(s) if necessary based on the signals from the monitoring computer], as suggested by Downer, in order to achieve one or more of enhanced operational efficiency, improved convenience, and/or enhanced troubleshooting capabilities (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of enabling various system interfaces to be remotely controlled and/or operated) [e.g., as opposed to when a display that does not comprise and/or define a control unit is utilized, the driver or workers will be able to remotely operate and/or take appropriate action(s) based on the received signal(s)].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Scheffer and Downer are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning railway vehicles, video cameras/sensing systems for detecting or monitoring passengers in a railway vehicle, techniques for transmitting video camera/sensing system data to a display in a cabin of the railway vehicle, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature(s) per Downer to the railway vehicle(s) per Scheffer, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed above, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space/ergonomic considerations, safety and/or security concerns, etc.), without exercising inventive skill]. Also see 101 and 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 10, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches detecting a horizontal distance from a platform to the railway vehicle by the sensor unit (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0053], [0058]) [e.g., “it is also possible to determine the distance between the door opening and a platform in order to optimally extend the step or boarding aid”];
transmitting the horizontal distance from the sensor unit to the monitoring computer (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0053], [0058]) [e.g., “The sensor unit 26 further comprises an evaluation unit (not shown) for evaluating the measured data. This can be integrated into the sensor unit or arranged externally”]; [e.g., “it is also possible to determine the distance between the door opening and a platform in order to optimally extend the step or boarding aid”];
determining an extension signal with an extension distance of a sliding step by the monitoring computer (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0053], [0058]) [e.g., “The function and use of access aids such as sliding steps or steps must also be monitored and controlled, as conditions on site can change, among other things. For example, platforms at different stations may be at different distances from the door opening, meaning that extendable and retractable boarding aids must be extended to different distances accordingly”]; [e.g., “it is also possible to determine the distance between the door opening and a platform in order to optimally extend the step or boarding aid”]; [e.g., the aforementioned extension signal with the extension distance defined and/or encompassed by the determined optimal extension of the step or boarding aid (sliding step)]; and
sending the extension signal with the extension distance from the monitoring computer to the sliding step (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0053], [0058]) [e.g., “it is also possible to determine the distance between the door opening and a platform in order to optimally extend the step or boarding aid”]; [e.g., the measured data is evaluated and the optimal extension of the step or boarding aid is enabled]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches detecting a height of the platform by the sensor unit (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0058]) [e.g., “Ultrasonic sensors in step systems to measure the distance to the platform and its height”]; [e.g., “The invention is also suitable in conjunction with other sensor elements, for example ultrasonic sensors”].
Scheffer fails to explicitly teach wherein the detected height of the platform is transmitted from the sensor unit to the monitoring computer, determining an extension signal with an extension height of a sliding step by the monitoring computer, and sending the extension signal with the extension height from the monitoring computer to the sliding step.
However, the aforementioned subject matter is at least suggested by Scheffer and/or a logical extension of the teachings/context per Scheffer (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0023], [0030], [0042], [0058]) [e.g., Scheffer teaches and/or suggests wherein the sensor unit may comprise ultrasonic sensors in step systems to measure the distance to the platform and its height, and wherein calibration of the sensor unit makes it possible to adapt to different environments such as different platform heights or given obstacles, and as such, it logically follows that in order to adapt to different or various platform heights or given obstacles, that the optimal extension of the sliding step or boarding aid must further include a corresponding extension signal with an extension height when the height of the platform differs from the height of the sliding step or boarding aid]; [e.g., if this were not the case, then there would essentially be no reason for Scheffer to suggest the use of ultrasonic sensors in step systems to measure the height of the platform].
Regarding claim 14, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Scheffer (Figures 1-4) further teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises (or can comprise) an optical sensor or a laser sensor [e.g., noting that a laser scanner is a type of LiDAR scanner] (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0017], [0052], [0058]-[0059]). Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 16-18, Scheffer in view of Downer teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The respective discussions and conclusion(s) of obviousness regarding the independent claims 1 and 9 are similarly applicable to the subject matter of the dependent claims 16-18 [e.g., the inventions arrived at via the combination of Scheffer and Downer would obviously and/or logically include a corresponding modified computer program product and/or computer readable medium that accounts for the inclusion and/or integration of the at least one interactive display device/control unit/touch screen computer (650) via which a driver or guard of the railway vehicle may operate a corresponding CCTV system interface]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claims 1 and 9.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747