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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 5, 2026 and June 23, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026, has been entered.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment files July 28, 2026, has been received and made of record. Claims 1 & 4-15 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 is amended and claims 2-3 & 16 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed April 28, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, please refer to pp. 5-9 of Applicant’s remarks, filed July 28. 2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as being anticipated by Schubert (EP 1270363 A1) have been entered, fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Schubert (EP 1270363 A1), in view of Rosenberger (US 2018/0029619 A1), and further in view of Valerio (US 2007/026000 A1). Therefore, the rejection of amended independent claim 2, and dependent claims 4-15, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained. Please see updated rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-12, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert (EP 12700363 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 02, 2003, hereinafter, Schubert), in view of Rosenberger et al. (US 2018/0029619 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 1, 2018, hereinafter, Rosenberger), and further in view of Valerio (US 2007/0262000 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 15, 2007, hereinafter, Valerio).
Regarding independent claim 1, Schubert, teaches:
A sensor arrangement for a railway system ([0001]-[0002], [0011], & [Claim 1]: directed to a sensor arrangement for monitoring a railway system), 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]: teaches a plurality of sensors where each sensor operates via an oscillating circuit coil):
the plurality of sensors are arranged in a two-dimensional arrangement (Fig. 1; [0004], [0006], [0008], [0012]-[0014], [0017], & [0020]-[0021]: discloses a 2D matrix/array of sensors forming multiple rows and columns, 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]: sensors have a sensing range that detects metal bodies (conductive material) moving through their inductive fields);
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]: teaches spacing the sensors so that any specific position falls within the overlapping sensing ranges of at least two sensors);
PNG
media_image1.png
364
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
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;
However, Rosenberger, further teaches:
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 ([0035], [0066], & [0074]: teaches dividing railway sensor evaluation across multiple discrete evaluation channels (“sub-evaluation units 26”) for safety and redundancy);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary evaluation device of Shubert’s array by incorporating the multiple independent sub-evaluation units of Rosenberger. Schubert discloses a two-dimensional railway sensor array but fails to disclose at least one first and second evaluation channel connected to different sensors. Rosenberger teaches a railway sensor arrangement comprising at least two sub-evaluation units acting as evaluation channels, where each sub-evaluation unit is connected with a position sensor. This modification represents a substitution of known evaluation architectures to improve similar railway detection devices. The motivation to divide the sensor evaluation across multiple discrete channels is to improve system safety and provide signal redundancy in the event of a localized sensor or channel failure, ensuring reliable track monitoring (KSR).
Schubert, and Rosenberger, are silent in regard to:
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; and
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.
However, Valerio, further teaches:
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 (Fig. 6; [0053]-[0054]: Fig. 6 illustrates an A-B-A-B pattern along a line, sensor 515 (first channel/frequency) sits directly between two sensors 517 (second channel/frequency), and vice versa); and
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 (Fig. 6; [0053]-[0054]: Fig. 6.illustrates a single linear array (a line) spanning the width containing exactly four sensors of the first set (515) and four sensors of the second set (517) alternating (White/Black/White/Black)).
PNG
media_image2.png
645
1059
media_image2.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 modify the dual-channel inductive array of Schubert and Rosenberger by arranging the sensors of the first and second channels alternatingly along a line, as taught by Valerio. The combined teachings of Schubert and Rosenberger disclose a dual-channel redundant array but do not disclose that one sensor from the first channel is between two from the second channel, and that along a line there are at least two sensors from each channel arranged alternatingly. Valerio teaches an analogous array of inductive sensors separated into a first set and second set configured in an alternating pattern along a line, meaning a first sensor is physically between two second sensors, and vice versa, with multiple sensors of each set alternating across the width. This adaptation constitutes the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, predictably applying standard spatial interleaving to a redundant inductive sensor matrix. The motivation to arrange the channel connection in this alternating linear pattern is to provide continuous, densely packed overlapping detection fields while preventing cross-talk interference between adjacent inductive sensors (KSR).
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], [0017], & [0023]: discloses a 2D railway sensor arrangement physically arranged to ensure overlapping sensing coverage at any given position along the sensing distance, where the metallic body (switch tongue) is detected at positions along its adjustment path),
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors that are connected with the first evaluation channel and whose sensing range extends over the respective position.
However, Valerio, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Schubert and Rosenberger in view of Valerio by implementing routing groups of sensors to distinct evaluation units (channels) of Rosenberger ([0035], [0066], & [0074]).
the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors that are connected with the first evaluation channel and whose sensing range extends over the respective position ([0038] & ]0056]: teaches a single array of sensors (a single evaluation channel group) can be configured with an overlap of 50% or higher, ensuring that at least two sensors belonging to that specific array (the first evaluation channel) extend over and monitor any given position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual-channel railway array of Schubert and Rosenberger to include at least 50% overlap among the specific sensors connected to the first evaluation channel, as taught by Valerio. The combination of Schubert and Rosenberger discloses a two-dimensional railway sensor arrangement partitioned into multiple evaluation channels but does not disclose that for each position along the sensing distance, there are at least two sensors connected to the first evaluation channel whose sensing ranges extend over that respective position. Valerio teaches an analogous two-dimensional inductive sensor matrix where a single evaluation array (representing the first evaluation channel) comprises multiple rows of sensors configured with an overlap percentage of 50% or higher such that any target piece is detected by multiple sensors within the same array. This modification represents the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, predictably increasing the physical density and overlapping range of the sensors routed to a single evaluation circuit. The motivation to incorporate at least two overlapping sensors on the first evaluation channel for every position is to improve overall system performance by adding a high level of intra-channel redundancy to the target detection, ensuring reliable continuous monitoring if an individual sensor node with that specific channel fails (KSR).
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], [0017], & [0023]: discloses a 2D railway sensor arrangement physically arranged to ensure overlapping sensing coverage at any given position along the sensing distance),
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors that are connected with the second evaluation channel and whose sensing range extends over the respective position.
However, Valerio, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Schubert and Rosenberger in view of Valerio by implementing routing groups of sensors to distinct evaluation units (channels) of Rosenberger ([0035], [0066], & [0074]).
the sensor arrangement comprises at least two sensors that are connected with the second evaluation channel and whose sensing range extends over the respective position ([0038] & ]0056]: teaches a single array of sensors (a single evaluation channel group) can be configured with an overlap of 50% or higher, ensuring that at least two sensors belonging to that specific array (the second evaluation channel) extend over and monitor any given position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual-channel railway array of Schubert and Rosenberger to include at least 50% overlap among the specific sensors connected to the second evaluation channel, as taught by Valerio. The combination of Schubert and Rosenberger discloses a two-dimensional railway sensor arrangement partitioned into multiple evaluation channels but does not disclose that for each position along the sensing distance, there are at least two sensors connected to the second evaluation channel whose sensing ranges extend over that respective position. Valerio teaches an analogous two-dimensional inductive sensor matrix where a single evaluation array, corresponding to an evaluation channel (representing the second evaluation channel), comprises multiple rows of sensors configured with an overlap percentage of 50% or higher such that any target piece is detected by multiple sensors within the same array. This modification represents the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, predictably increasing the physical density and overlapping range of the sensors routed to a redundant evaluation circuit. The motivation to incorporate at least two overlapping sensors on the second evaluation channel for every position is to improve overall system performance by adding a high level of intra-channel redundancy to the target detection, ensuring reliable continuous monitoring even if an individual sensor node with that specific channel fails (KSR).
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 (Figs. 1 & 7; [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 (Figs. 1 & 7; [0004], [0006], [0008], [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0018], & [0020]-[0021]: teaches a 2D railway sensor arrangement physically structured in multiple rows figures illustrate 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], & [0017]: 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], & [0017]: teaches a 2D array divided into multiple adjacent rows (a first row and a second row), where the sensors in these respective rows have individual sensing fields/ranges used to detect position along the sensing distance, figure further 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], [0017], & [0023]: requires staggering the adjacent first and second rows and packing them with a density high enough that any given location triggers at least two sensors simultaneously, requiring the first sensing range of a sensor in the first row and the second sensing range of a sensor in the second row to partially overlap; 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], [0014], & [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]: teaches that the railway sensor arrangement includes an evaluation unit that is structurally configured to receive, compare, and process the output signals detected by all the sensors in the array).
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]: teaches that the evaluation unit processes the output signals of the plural sensors to calculate/determine the exact spatial position of the moving electrically conductive metallic body along the sensing path/adjustment path).
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]]: teaches an evaluation unit that pinpoints the current or respective spatial position of the metallic body (switch tongue) anywhere within its adjustment path at various points based on the sensor patterns and differentiates between at least two different spatial positions).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 9 ([0001]-[0002], [0011], & [Claim 1]),
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
wherein the evaluation unit comprises an output, and the evaluation unit is configured to provide the determined spatial position at the output.
However, Rosenberger, further teaches:
wherein the evaluation unit comprises an output, and the evaluation unit is configured to provide the determined spatial position at the output (Fig. 1A; [0008], [0011], & [0065]: discloses an evaluation unit (10) comprising an output (13), the evaluation unit is configured to provide the calculated/determined spatial position (current position) of the moving object at this output).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
1351
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 modify the evaluation unit of Schubert to include an output providing the determined position, as taught by Rosenberger. Schubert discloses an evaluation unit determining the spatial position of a conductive material but does not detail the evaluation unit comprising an output configured to provide this determined position. Rosenberger teaches a railway sensor arrangement where the evaluation unit (10) comprises an output (13) configured to provide the determined current position of a rail vehicle on the track. This modification represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, predictably integrating standard signal output interfaces into an established calculation unit. The motivation to provide the determined spatial position at a specific evaluation unit output is to allow downstream railway systems, such as application units or track monitors, to utilize the location data for improved timetable management, safety, and train speed control (KSR).
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], [0011], [0014]-[0016], & [0024]) of at least a segment of a movable railway element of the railway system ([0001]-[0002], [0011]-[0014], & [0024]) along the sensing distance ([0001]-[0006], [0011]-0014], & [0024]), and wherein the movable railway element comprises electrically conductive material ([0001]-[0004] & [0011]-[0017]: teaches that the object being tracked is a switch blade which is a movable railway element, states this movable railway element is a “metallic body”, meaning it comprises electrically conductive material, the evaluation unit determines its spatial position along the sensing distance).
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]: teaches that the sensors are operated “contactlessly” and are positioned above, below, or to the side of the moving metallic body (switch blade/movable railway element), this structural arrangement requires the plurality of sensors to be configured spaced apart from the movable railway element).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert, in view of Rosenberger, in view of Valerio, and further 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]: discloses a mechanical mounting device for railway sensors comprising a rail claw, the claw is structurally configured to be directly connectable to the rail, specifically the rail foot/base).
PNG
media_image4.png
552
752
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 modify the railway sensor arrangement of Schubert to include the connectable rail claw taught by Frauscher, according to known methods. Schubert discloses a sensor arrangement for a railway system for detecting the position of a railway switch tongue but fails to disclose that the sensor comprises a rail claw that is connectable to a rail of the railway system. Frauscher teaches a fastening device for railway sensors comprising a rail claw that is connectable directly to the base of a rail and switching and measuring devices in rail switches and wheel sensors to the rails of tracks. This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, serving as a substitution of known mechanical fastening elements for railway track sensors. The motivation to incorporate this specific rail claw is to securely mount the sensor arrangement to the rail while simultaneously providing a mechanism to dampen destructive high-acceleration shock, vibrations, and noise caused by passing trains, improving the lifespan and reliability of the sensors (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Schubert, teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 13 ([0001]-[0002], [0011], & [Claim 1]),
Schubert, is silent in regard to:
wherein the plurality of sensors are mechanically connected with the rail claw.
However, Frauscher, further teaches:
wherein the plurality of sensors are mechanically connected with the rail claw (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002], [0011], [0014], [Claim 1] & [Claim 4]: teaches taking the measuring devices (sensors housed in casing 20) and mechanically connecting them to the rail claw using physical fasteners such as screws, 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_image5.png
572
813
media_image5.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 modify the railway sensor arrangement fo Schubert by mechanically connecting the plurality of sensors to the rail claw taught by Frauscher, according to known methods. Schubert discloses a sensor arrangement comprising a plurality of sensors but fails to detail that the plurality of sensors are mechanically connected with a rail claw. Frauscher teaches a fastening device for railway sensors comprising a rail claw 4 where the measuring devices (sensors) are mechanically connected to the top of the claw, such as by being housed in a casing 20 that is mechanically fastened to the claw 4 via screws 21. This modification represents a substitution of known mechanical fastening elements for railway track sensors to yield a predictable variation of a mounted sensing array. The motivation to mechanically connect the sensors to this specific rail claw is to securely mount the entire array to the track infrastructure while providing a robust, secure, shock-absorbing buffer (vibration-resistant mechanical interface) that allows for secure fastening and protects sensitive electronic components from the destructive vibrations of passing trains (KSR).
Conclusion
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 September 16, 2026
/SON T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights