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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 5, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on December 9, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 & 4-15 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3 were canceled. Claims 1, 4 & 5 were amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 9, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, please refer to pp. 6-9 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 6, 2026 have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amendments, the Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference made of record in the most recent Office Action does not teach the currently recited claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference, Schubert (EP 1270363 A1), does not teach the limitation of “the sensor arrangement comprises at least one first evaluation channel and at least one second evaluation channel, and wherein some sensors of the plurality of sensors are connected with the first evaluation channel, and other sensors of the plurality of sensors are connected with the second evaluation channel; and the some sensors connected with the first evaluation channel and the other sensors connected with the second evaluation channel are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance” recited in independent claim 1. Applicant has emphasized the sensors from the first and second evaluation channels, stating Schubert does not show that the sensors are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding the sensor arrangement argument, please refer to pp.8-9 of Applicant’s remarks, where the Applicant states that Fig. 6 of prior art reference, Schubert, demonstrates the sensors connected with the first and second evaluation channels “arranged directly adjacent to each other”. The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “along a line there are at least two sensors connected with the first evaluation channel and at least two sensors connected with the second evaluation channel that are arranged alternatingly”, or “one sensor connected with the first evaluation channel is arranged between two sensors connected with the second evaluation channel and one sensor connected with the second evaluation channel is arranged between two sensors connected with the first evaluation channel”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figures. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, the claims and/or figures do not recite or define the specific alternating pattern (“one sensor connected with the first evaluation channel is arranged between two sensors connected with the second evaluation channel and one sensor connected with the second evaluation channel is arranged between two sensors connected with the first evaluation channel”) between the two types of sensors connected to the first and second evaluation channels. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the specific sensor arrangement, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In the immediate case of this application, the Examiner has taken the interpretation that the arrangement of the sensors, as disclosed by Schubert in Fig. 6, visually depicts the sensors adjacent and alternating.
This leads to the second part the Examiner would like to highlight, how the prior art reference, Schubert, reads on the claims. The Examiner mapped the first evaluation channel and second evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]) where some sensors of the plurality of sensors are connected with the first evaluation channel and other sensors of the plurality of sensors are connected with the second evaluation channel are arranged alternatingly (i.e., Fig. 6; [0008]: discloses “sensors of adjacent rows preferably being offset from each other”, Figure 6 further displays the offset feature, which is interpreted as alternating when combined with the visual depiction of the sensor pattern, and which is strikingly similar to Applicant’s Fig. 2, which depicts the alternating pattern between sensors) along the sensing distance (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]). Figure 6 further depicts the first top row of sensors (9) for fine detection, middle sensors (10) for rough detection, and the third or bottom row of sensors (9) for fine detection. The sensors are all adjacent to each other, and upon further examination of Figure 6, can see from top-to-bottom or vice versa, that the sensors alternate between sensor (9) to sensor (10), in a similar diagonal, alternating manner, as disclosed by the Applicant in Figure 2 of the disclosure drawings provided. Furthermore, for each position the sensors belong to, either the first or second evaluation channel, respectively have a sensing range that extends over the respective position (i.e., overlap of sensing ranges of the sensors in Fig. 1 of Schubert), and paragraph [0008] further discloses that the configuration of sensors with “different response sensitivities or different button types across the monitoring area in such a way that coarse and fine localization are possible”, interpreted as the sensors array(s) can be modified to meet different needs/wants in regard to the “alternating pattern”. Based on Figs. 1 & 6 and the paragraphs mentioned above, and disclosed by Schubert, and pp.4-7 from the Non-Final OA mailed December 9, 2025, the Examiner believes that the “sensors connected with the first evaluation channel and sensors connected with the second evaluation channel are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance”.
The Examiner believes that amending the claims to recite some portions of what the Applicant defines as “are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance” and portions of the additional explanation provided on pp. 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks, may help overcome the teachings of Schubert. However, based on the reasoning provided above, the Examiner believes Schubert teaches the limitations recited in the claims as currently presented. Therefore, the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1, and dependent claims 4-15, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
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 1 & 4-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the some sensors connected with the first evaluation channel and the others sensors connected with the second evaluation channel are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance." In ll. 15-17, without prior disclosure of “the some sensors” and “the other sensors”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “the some sensors of the plurality of sensors connected with the first evaluation channel and the other sensors of the plurality of sensors connected with the second evaluation channel are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance.” The recited limitations of “the some sensors…and the other sensors…are arranged alternatingly…”, results in metes and bounds not clear for this limitation due to lack of description, would require additional information on how the sensors are specifically laid out in an alternating pattern, differentiating between the sensors from the plurality of sensors. Claims 4-15 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent amended claim 1, which do not rectify the defect(s).
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.
Claims 1, 4-12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schubert (EP 12700363 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 02, 2003, hereinafter Schubert).
Regarding independent claim 1, Schubert, teaches:
A sensor arrangement for a railway system ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), the sensor arrangement comprising ([0001]-[0002], [0004] & [Claim 1]):
a plurality of sensors, each sensor comprising a coil, wherein (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0004], [0009], [0012]-[0014] & [0019]-[0021]):
the plurality of sensors are arranged in a two-dimensional arrangement (Fig. 1; [0004], [0006], [0008], [0012]-[0014], [0017] & [0020]-[0021]: figure illustrates the sensors (4) arranged in a grid pattern (rows and columns) inside the array (3));
each sensor has a sensing range within which the respective sensor is configured to detect movement of electrically conductive material ([Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007] & [0012]-[0014]);
for each position along a sensing distance within the two-dimensional arrangement, the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors of the plurality of sensors whose sensing range extends over the respective position (Fig. 1; [0008], [0013] & [0023]);
the sensor arrangement comprises at least one first evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: fine detection or less response sensitivity of the tongue rail position interpreted as the first evaluation channel) and at least one second evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: rough detection of the tongue rail position interpreted as the second evaluation channel), and wherein some sensors of the plurality of sensors are connected with the first evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses sensors (9) connected to a first evaluation channel), and other sensors of the plurality of sensors are connected with the second evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses sensors (10) connected to a second evaluation channel); and
the some sensors connected with the first evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses sensors (9) connected with a first evaluation channel) and the other sensors connected with the second evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses other sensors (sensors 10) connected with a second evaluation channel) are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses that the sensors are arranged alternatingly along the sensing distance (adjustment path), figure illustrates the sequences of rows as: row of sensors 9 (channel 1) then a row of sensors 10 (middle; channel 2), then a row of sensors 9 (channel 1) again, as the metallic body moves along the sensing distance, it encounters the rows in an alternating sequence).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 4, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0002], [0008], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein for each position along the sensing distance within the two-dimensional arrangement ([0001]-[0004]: discloses a sensor arrangement where the metallic body (switch tongue) is detected at positions along its adjustment path), the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors that are connected with the first evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0008], [0018], [0023], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses at least two sensors (sensors 9) connected with the first evaluation channel, sensors (9) correspond to the first channel, the figure visually illustrates two separate rows of the smaller sensors (9), one top row and one bottom row, the middle row contains larger sensors (10)) and whose sensing range extends over the respective position (Figs. 1 & 6; [0008], [0011]-[0013], [0018], [0023], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses that at least two of the first channel sensors extend over the respective position, metallic body (switch tongue) is a long rail element that extends across the entire width of the sensor array, illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0002], [0008], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein for each position along the sensing distance within the two-dimensional arrangement ([0001]-[0004]), the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors that are connected with the second evaluation channel (Fig. 6; [0003]-[0004], [0008], [00018], [0023], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses that the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors connected to the second evaluation channel, sensors (10), disclosure teaches “several rows” and a density where at least two sensors detect the position) and whose sensing range extends over the respective position (Figs. 1 & 6; [0008], [0018], [0023], [0027] & [Claim 10]: discloses that the sensing ranges of these at least two sensors extend over the respective position, and requires that the density is sufficient so that at least two sensors indicate the position).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the two-dimensional arrangement comprises at least one first row of sensors (Fig. 1; [0004], [0006], [0008], [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0018] & [0020]-[0021]: figure illustrates the first (top) row of sensors in the array) and at least one second row of sensors (Fig. 1; [0004], [0006], [0008], [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0018] & [0020]-[0021]: figure illustrates a second row located immediately below the first row).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 6 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein at least one sensor of the first row has a first sensing range along the sensing distance (Fig. 1; [0006]-[0008] & [0012]-[0013]: figure illustrates the first (top row of sensors with defined circular boundaries representing their sensing range), and at least one sensor of the second row has a second sensing range along the sensing distance (Fig. 1; [0006]-[0008] & [0012]-[0013]: figure illustrates a second row of sensors immediately below the first row), and wherein the first sensing range and the second sensing range partially overlap (Fig. 1; [0006]-[0008], [0012]-[0013] & [0023]: figure illustrates a honeycomb or staggered packing of the sensors (circles), where the sensors of the second row are shifted to fill the interstices of the first row, creating an overlapping coverage pattern along the sensing distance (adjustment path).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises an evaluation unit ([Abstract], [0004], [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027] & [Claim 1]) that is configured to receive signals detected by the plurality of sensors ([0004], [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027] & [Claim 1]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 8 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine a spatial position ([Abstract], [0004], [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027] & [Claim 1]) of moving electrically conductive material along the sensing distance ([0004], [0012]-[0016], [0024], [0027] & [Claim 1]) from the signals received from the plurality of sensors ([0004], [0012]-[0016], [0024], [0027] & [Claim 1]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 9 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the evaluation unit is configured to differentiate between at least two different spatial positions ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0014], [0024] & [Claim 1]) of the electrically conductive material along the sensing distance ([0001]-[0005], [0014], [0024] & [Claim 1]]: system locates the metallic body (switch tongue) at various points within its adjustment path).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 9 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the evaluation unit comprises an output ([Abstract], [0001]-[0004], [0014]-[0016], [0024], [0027]-[0028] & [Claim 1]), and the evaluation unit is configured to provide the determined spatial position at the output ([0001]-[0004], [0009]-[0010], [0014]-[0016], [0024] & [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 8 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine a spatial position ([Abstract], [0001]-[0004], [0014]-[0016] & [0024]) of at least a segment of a movable railway element of the railway system ([0001]-[0002], [0012]-[0014] & [0024]) along the sensing distance ([0001]-[0006], [0012]-0014] & [0024]), and wherein the movable railway element comprises electrically conductive material ([0001]-[0004] & [0012]-[0017]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the plurality of sensors are configured to be arranged spaced apart ([0006], [0026 &, [Claim 1]) from a movable railway element of the railway system [0001]-[0006], [0012]-[0014] & [0017]-[0019]).
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert, in view of Frauscher (EP 0374697 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 27, 1990, hereinafter, Frauscher).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]),
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a rail claw that is connectable to a rail of the railway system
However, Frauscher, further teaches:
wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a rail claw (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002] & [Claim 1]) that is connectable to a rail of the railway system (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002], [Claim 1] & [Claim 4]).
PNG
media_image3.png
552
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor arrangement comprises a rail claw that is connectable to a rail of the railway system, of Frauscher to Schubert, according to known methods. Where Schubert discloses a sensor array system for detecting the position of a railway switch tongue, and Frauscher discloses a device for fastening switching and measuring devices in rail switches and wheel sensors to the rails of tracks, in order to improve protection of sensors from high acceleration and vibration by using a specialized claw with damping materials. Incorporating the claw disclosed by Frauscher into the sensor arrangement of Schubert, being obvious to a POSITA, would be a predictable use of prior art elements and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 13 ([0001]-[0002], [0011] & [Claim 1]), wherein the plurality of sensors ([0004])
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
are mechanically connected with the rail claw.
However, Frauscher, further teaches:
are mechanically connected with the rail claw (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002], [0011], [0014], [Claim 1] & [Claim 4]: figure illustrates how a switching or measuring device is placed onto the top side of the claw and can be fastened, for example with the aid of screws).
PNG
media_image4.png
572
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mechanically connected with the rail claw, of Frauscher to Schubert, according to known methods. Where Schubert discloses a sensor array system that must be positioned relative to the rail and the switch tongue, and Frauscher teaches a fastening device a device for switching and measuring devices in rail switches and wheel sensors to the rails of tracks, and mechanically connecting the sensor housing to the rail claw using fasteners such as screws. In order to attain and improve the mechanical connection of the plurality of sensors of Schubert to the rail claw of Frauscher, to provide a robust, secure, vibration-resistant mechanical interface for the Schubert sensors. Frauscher teaches that the connection method allows for secure fastening and protects sensitive electronic components. Substituting Schubert’s unspecified mount with the specialized rail claw mount of Frauscher is obvious to a POSITA, that would yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Valerio (US2007/0262000A1) discloses a method and apparatus for sorting nonferrous metals and insulated wire pieces.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 April 14, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights