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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the weather/natural disaster warning system of Nakamura is not analogous to the trouble detection system of the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees as, for example, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a fallen rocks along a railway would be analogous to “trouble” and further that along a railway would broadly incorporate railway crossings, therefore the disclosure reasonably discloses railroad crossing trouble. Applicant correctly points out that Nakamura discloses an apparatus that judges the presence or absence of falling rocks or an avalanche. It is not clear how an avalanche or falling rocks would not be considered trouble for a train. See MPEP 2131. It should also be noted that newly cited reference Ebuchi is relied upon to disclose providing instruction to stop the train based on problems at a railroad crossing.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP2007269245A) hereinafter Nakamura, Metel et al. (US 5,751,569) hereinafter Metel, and Ebuchi et al (JP2008239054A) hereinafter Ebuchi.
Claim 1:
Nakamura discloses a relay ground system that has a relaying function [Fig. 3; 300], to relay notification information transmitted by a railroad crossing ground system [Fig. 3; 20] using a predetermined wireless communication protocol [¶35], the wireless communication protocol being a communication protocol under which an onboard system of a train is capable of receiving information [¶35, wireless communication with onboard device 30 and the trackside monitoring device 20], the notification information transmitted by the railroad crossing ground system including an instruction to the train based on detection information on a railroad crossing trouble and railroad crossing identification information of a railroad crossing related to the railroad crossing ground system in association with each other [¶19 weather/disaster could be crossing trouble], a wireless communication device that receives and transmits the notification information [Fig. 3; ¶35, relay transmission/reception unit 320]; and wherein wireless communication of the railroad crossing ground system has a first communication range, wireless communication of the relay ground system has a second communication range [shown in Figs. 3-4], the relay ground system is located within the first communication range of the wireless communication of the railroad crossing ground [Fig. 3 shows the direct communication between 20 and 300] the relay section causes the wireless communication device to transmit the received notification information to the onboard system of the train using the wireless communication protocol when the train is located within the second communication range of the wireless communication of the relay ground system but outside the first communication range of the wireless communication of the railroad crossing ground system [as shown in Fig. 3 as opposed to Fig. 4 when 20 can directly communicate with 30].
Nakamura doesn’t explicitly disclose the relay ground system comprising: a storage section that stores the railroad crossing identification information of the railroad crossing requiring the relay of the notification information for the train, as relay-required railroad crossing identification information; a relay section that determines whether to relay the railroad crossing identification information included in the received notification information through comparison with the relay-required railroad crossing identification information, and if a result of the determination is affirmative, causes the wireless communication device to transmit the received notification information to the onboard system of the train using the wireless communication protocol, thereby causing speed of the train to be controlled based on the instruction included in the notification information,
However, Ebuchi discloses the relay ground system comprising: a storage section that stores the railroad crossing identification information of the railroad crossing requiring the relay of the notification information for the train, as relay-required railroad crossing identification information; thereby causing speed of the train to be controlled based on the instruction included in the notification information, and a railroad crossing ground system [Abstract; ¶17]
Further, Metel discloses a relay section that determines whether to relay the railroad crossing identification information included in the received notification information through comparison with the relay-required railroad crossing identification information, and if a result of the determination is affirmative, causes the wireless communication device to transmit the received notification information to the onboard system of the train using the wireless communication protocol [abstract; col. 3, lines 27-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the railroad system of Nakamura with the alarm module and stop command of Ebuchi to stop the train before a potential accident.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the railroad system of Nakamura and Ebuchi with the railroad identification information of Metel to ensure communication is made to the appropriate equipment.
Claim 2:
Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakamura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the storage section stores the railroad crossing identification information of the railroad crossing existing in a direction from the ground system to the railroad crossing that is a predetermined direction, as the relay-required railroad crossing identification information.
However, Metel does disclose wherein the storage section stores the railroad crossing identification information of the railroad crossing existing in a direction from the ground system to the railroad crossing that is a predetermined direction, as the relay-required railroad crossing identification information. [col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 2; adjacent logic neighbors inherently implies a directional relationship]
Claim 5:
Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakamura also discloses comprising a function of the railroad crossing ground system [¶19; a railroad crossing is encompassed within, "along the railway line"].
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ERA * UNSIG * EEIG ERTMS USERS GROUP ERTMS/ETMS System Requirements Specification hereinafter ETMS.
Claim 3:
Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakamura also discloses wherein the railroad crossing ground system sends the notification information to be sent in an inbound direction including train incoming direction information indicating the inbound direction, and sends the notification information to be sent in an outbound direction including train incoming direction information indicating the outbound direction [Fig. 1 shows traveling direction arrows which inherently implies directionality].
Nakamura doesn’t explicitly disclose the relay section determines that it is not necessary to relay the notification information if the train incoming direction information included in the notification information received by the wireless communication device is different from the direction from the ground system to the railroad crossing related to the notification information.
However, ETMS does disclose the relay section determines that it is not necessary to relay the notification information if the train incoming direction information included in the notification information received by the wireless communication device is different from the direction from the ground system to the railroad crossing related to the notification information. [7.5.1.103 Q_DIR]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the railroad system of Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel with the standards of ETMS to improve efficiency of relay communications.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Metel, and Hilleary ‘820 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hilleary (US 2017/0313331 A1) hereinafter Hilleary ‘331.
Claim 4:
Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakamura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the notification information further includes an ID of the notification information and information indicating the number of relay counts that is the number of times the notification information was relayed, and if a plurality of pieces of the notification information with the same ID are received by the reception section, the relay section determines the notification information that includes the smallest number of relay counts and includes the railroad crossing identification information that matches the relay-required railroad crossing identification information, as the notification information to be relayed, updates the number of relay counts included in the determined notification information, and relays the determined notification information.
However, Hilleary ‘331 does disclose wherein the notification information further includes an ID of the notification information and information indicating the number of relay counts that is the number of times the notification information was relayed, and if a plurality of pieces of the notification information with the same ID are received by the reception section, the relay section determines the notification information that includes the smallest number of relay counts and includes the railroad crossing identification information that matches the relay-required railroad crossing identification information, as the notification information to be relayed, updates the number of relay counts included in the determined notification information, and relays the determined notification information. [¶91, 95; a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the limitation as hop counting and optimization].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the railroad system of Nakamura, Ebuchi, and Metel with the hop counting of Hilleary '331 to reduce latency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights