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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/28/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-15 remain pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-12, & 15 have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Regarding “Objection to claims 1, 8, and 14-15”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page 8 lines 7-26, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 8, and 14-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 1, 8, and 14-15 has been withdrawn.
Regarding “Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page 8 line , filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Regarding “Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §103”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claim have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of Claim have been withdrawn.
Regarding “Non-statutory Double Patenting Rejection”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claim have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections of Claim have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claims 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding “Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9 lines 22-23):
“The Supreme Court defined the two-part test for determining patent-eligible concepts in Alice as: …”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The full 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis is shown in MPEP 2106 and outlined in flow diagrams found in MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A).
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 07/28/2026, with respect to Claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10 lines 1-3):
“Prong 1. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Office Action has determined that claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea, but the Office Action is incorrect.”
& (page 10 lines 11-19):
“Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite: … It is clear that amended claim 1, even when read under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cannot lead to the conclusion that amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03(I): “As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment.”
See MPEP 2106.05(e): “The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Analysis:
At Revised Step 2A Prong One: “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?”. The claims recites at least “one analyzing component configured to analyze the sensor data” and amended with various Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms which are not significantly more than code or programming which necessarily require calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) or determinations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
At Revised Step 2A Prong Two: “Does the claim recite elements that integrate the judicial exception ?”. At step 2A Prong Two analysis of independent claim 1, it was explained that the claims did not recite significantly more than extra solution activity done in a computing environment. The amended limitation elements of “accelerometer”, “railway network”, “server”, “remote cloud server”, are not significantly more than generic computer or technological environment limitations.
At step 2B: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”. There are no additional elements which are not generic technological environment limitations or effectively stating ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
The claims are not significantly more than programming/code which necessarily requires mathematical or mental processes done in a generic computer or technological environment.
Applicant argues (page 10 lines 21-24):
“in amended claim 1, the at least one processing component and the at least one analyzing component may use one or more mathematical concepts. However, amended, claim 1 does not seek to tie up any mathematical relationship (indeed, no mathematical relationship is actually claimed).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Limitations such as “analyze the sensor data” necessarily requires either mental processes or mathematical concepts, and limitations such as “embeddings from Language Models (ELMo) …” are necessarily code/programming which uses mental processes or mathematical concepts. Without ‘additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application’ at Revised Step 2A Prong Two, the claims don’t overcome the 35 USC 101 analysis to amount to eligible subject matter (see flow diagram in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). The claims as stated would monopolize judicial exceptions over the technological environment corresponding to at least CPC symbol B61L25/06”. “Indicating or recording the setting of track apparatus, e.g. of points, of signals”.
Applicant argues (page 11 lines 6-10):
“Here the system of amended claim 1 is configured for far more than simple grouping. The system of amended claim 1 is configured to identify at least one data comprising similar parameters between a first railway network and a second railway network and to perform such identification, …”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The combination of a judicial exception with another judicial exception results in a more complex judicial exception; combining judicial exceptions does not result in a patentable claim. There would need to be at step 2A Prong Two “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” for Pathway B to “Claim Qualifies as Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. 101”.
Applicant argues (page 11 lines 16-17):
“Moreover, claim 1 has been amended to recite that the system is configured to access at least one remote server to establish a bidirectional connection.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The use of a server is not significantly more than generic computing elements and at step 2B is shown (below) to be conventional and so not “significantly more than the judicial exception”.
Applicant argues (page 12 lines 13-15):
“Moreover, the system does not use generic computer functions to achieve the cross-network learning and instead uses specific components with specific functionalities. ”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The claims state generic computer or technological environment elements such as “processing component”, “analyzing component”, “accelerometer”, etc. The “computer functions” (even if non generic) are at least under the BRI judicial exception(s). It is not clear what could be interpreted as a ‘specific component’. Additional elements would be necessary at step 2A Prong Two and at step 2B to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”).
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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1-15 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.
Claims 1 & 8 in lines 10-11 & line 11 (respectively) recites the limitation "applying at least one developing model comprising at least one of …,". It is not clear what the “developing model” is or how it is generated other than that it comprises a trained model (‘comprises’ means claimed device has at least the elements which follow and ‘consisting of’ means that the claimed device is only the elements which follow, MPEP 2111.03). A POSITA would not know what a “developing model” is beyond that it comprises a trained model.
Claim 1 in lines 8-10 recites the limitation "at least one analyzing component". It is not clear how acceleration data is being processed by a language model; typically text is put into a language model but acceleration data (a numerical value) is the output of an accelerometer.
Claims 2 & 9 in line 3 & line 4 (respectively) recites the limitation "generate[ing] a corrected railway network related dataset.". It is unclear what corrections are generated and by what means.
Claims 4 & 10 in lines 4-5 (both claims) recites the limitation "process[ing] the incoming maintenance data from the at least one railway network to generate at least one processed incoming maintenance dataset,". It is not clear what processing is being applied to what data. A POSITA would not know if the “incoming maintenance data” is only data from the accelerometer or if there is other data and what sort of processing would be applied to that data.
Claim 8 in lines 5-6 recites the limitation "pre-processing the at least one railway network related datum, and generating at least one pre-processed railway network related datum,". It is not clear what the “pre-processed railway network related datum,” means (such as what computations are applied to what sort of data).
Claim 8 in lines 8-11 recites the limitation "structuring the at least one railway network related data datum generating a". It is not clear how acceleration data is being processed by a language model; typically text is put into a language model but acceleration data is the output of an accelerometer.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-6, & 9-14 are rejected for inheriting rejected limitations of parent claims 1 & 8 (respectively) without rectifying the issues for which claims 1 & 8 were rejected.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding “Description requirement and new matter situations”:
Claims 1 & 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 8 in lines 9-10 & line 10 (respectively) recites the limitation "unify[ing] at least one technical word from a plurality of datasets,". The specification does not say significantly more than (page 3 line 15) “Furthermore, the system may be configured to unify at least one technical word from a plurality of dataset.”. It is not clear what a “technical word” is or what is means to unify[ing] a ‘technical word’.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for monitoring … system comprising at least one sensor component” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“at least one processing component configured to (pre)process the sensor data by structuring the sensor data,”
“at least one analyzing component configured to analyze the sensor data,”
“by generating a text-form dataset, unifying at least one technical word from a plurality of datasets, and applying at least one developing model comprising at least one of: Embeddings from Language Models (ELMo), Bag of Words (BoW), Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Word Embedding such as word2vec, Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe), Transformer, Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification (ULMFiT), and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT),”
“and wherein the system is configured to identify at least one data comprising similar parameters between a first railway network and a second railway network, the first railway network being different form the second railway network.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I):
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C):
“In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Analysis:
These limitations are directed towards processing and analyzing sensor data. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation at the level of generality of the claim language, these limitations could be mental processes or mathematical concepts done either in the human mind or on generic computing elements.
Language models are code/programming which applies statistical/mathematical models to text.
Conclusion:
The claim recites limitations within the abstract idea groupings of either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitations of:
“at least one sensor component comprising at least one accelerometer mounted on at least one sleeper or rail of the at least one railway network and configured to measure sensor data related to the at least one railway network”
“and at least one interface configured to access at least one server, the at least one server being a remote cloud server, configured to be bidirectionally connected to the system, wherein the sensor data comprises at least one datum recorded during an inspection activity.”
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“sensor component”, “railway network”, “processing component”, “analyzing component”, “interface”, “server”, “remote cloud server”, “accelerometer”, “sleeper”, “rail”, “first railway network”, “second railway network”.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Analysis:
The additional limitations amount to no more than extra solution activity of either pre-solution (data gathering) or post-solution activity (storing data in memory) done in a computing environment.
The additional elements are not significantly more than extra solution activity of data gathering (“sensor component”) done in a computing environment or technological environment limitations corresponding to at least CPC symbol B61L25/06: . “Indicating or recording the setting of track apparatus, e.g. of points, of signals”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the additional limitations and elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitations and elements listed in step 2A Prong Two.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,…
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,”
Analysis:
The additional limitations and elements are not significantly more than computer functions which are well-understood, routine, and conventional applied in their conventional manner to data from the field of art of at least cpc symbol B61L 25/06: { Recording or indicating positions or identities of vehicles or trains or setting of track apparatus } Indicating or recording the setting of track apparatus, e.g. of points, of signals
Conclusion:
Therefore, the additional limitations and elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for monitoring … system comprising at least one sensor component” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the system is configured to correct the sensor data,”
“and generate a corrected railway network related dataset.”
Explanation:
Correcting data and generating data are either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for monitoring … system comprising at least one sensor component” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the system is configured to generate a text form dataset,”
“tokenize at least one technical word from a plurality of datasets using a Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) representation,”
“classify the at least one dataset,”
“using at least one of: Embeddings from Language Models (ELMo), Bag of Words (BoW), Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Word Embedding such as word2vec, Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe), Transformer, Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification (ULMFiT), and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT),”
“and generate at least one language-agnostic word-embedding using at least one of: Embeddings from Language Models (ELMo), Word Embedding such as word2vec, Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe), Transformer, Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification (ULMFiT), and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT).”
Explanation:
Using data to create datasets or to analyze data are either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for monitoring … system comprising at least one sensor component” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“process the incoming maintenance data from the at least one railway network to generate at least one processed incoming maintenance dataset,”
“and generate at least one developing model based on the at least one processed incoming maintenance dataset, wherein the at least one developing model comprises at least one trained model with structured data.”
Explanation:
Using data to create datasets or to analyze data are either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein the system is configured to collect incoming maintenance data from at least one railway network,”
Explanation:
Collecting maintenance data is insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution data gathering)
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements listed in step 2A Prong Two are insignificant extra solution activity limitations which have been recognized by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity of either
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,… or
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory
Conclusion
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for monitoring … system comprising at least one sensor component” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the system is configured to model the incoming maintenance data from the at least one railway network based on the at least one processed incoming maintenance dataset,”
“and generate at least one prediction based on the at least one processed incoming maintenance dataset,”
“wherein the at least one prediction comprises at least one of a maintenance recommendation and an action.”
Explanation:
Using data to create datasets or to analyze data are either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for monitoring … system comprising at least one sensor component” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the system is configured to identify and analyze at least one of a number of effective inspections,”
“a malfunction event,”
“and a trigger of a maintenance action.”
Explanation:
Limitation and elements are directed towards either mental processes or mathematical concepts
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A Prong One.
Conclusion
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.”
Claims 8-15 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210269077 A1 “Smart Sensor Data Transmission in Railway Infrastructure” (Speckmeier) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1 & claim 1.
US 20220397487 A1 “System, Method And Apparatus For Monitoring The Health Of Railcar Wheelsets” (Samadani) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights