DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to communications received on 07/13/2026. No Claims are amended. Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending. 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/13/2026, to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding 103 and motivation have been considered, but have not been found persuasive.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on pages 15-18 on the Remarks that the cited portions of Slover do not disclose “send an activation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal in response to receiving the indication of the user selection to activate the eligible railroad crossing signal", as recited in Claim 1. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon closely reviewing the portions cited by the Office (Slover, Paras. [0070]-[0071], [0084]-[0085], [0091]-[0095]), Slover cites: “At this point, the one or more components of the gate system 40 are returned to a normal, active operating state”, which describes doing a maintenance step, and at the end of the maintenance, the components of the system return back to a normal, active operating state. Which involves activating the signal. Slover in Paras. [0084]-[0085], cites: “a maintenance worker may submit a service request to perform maintenance on one or more components of the gate system 40 that need to be temporarily taken out of service”, which a maintenance worker corresponds to a user, and as discussed above, after each maintenance the components return back to a normal, active operating state.
However, Slover explicitly teaches an activation state, please see Para. [0086] for further support, which cites: “The data indicating the type of service request may include data indicating a track out-of-service request, a crossing gate hold-up request, a test mode activation request, a sensor bypass request, a communications channel diagnostic request, a power supply override or monitoring request, and/or the like. The track out-of-service request may be submitted to disable automatic crossing protection (e.g., gate activation, warning lights, etc.) for a specific track segment to allow the maintenance worker to perform a maintenance task. ………………. . A test activation mode request may place one or more components of gate system 40 into a diagnostic test state to verify proper functionality without triggering a full warning sequence (e.g., run gate lamp test on Track 1).”, which teaches receiving a user selection of a test mode activation request to activate a railroad crossing signal, such as a gate lamp for example on Track 1. And teaches that in response to the test mode activation request, the system places the components into a diagnostic test sate to “run gate lamp test”, which again requires sending an activation signal to the gate lamp to verify its functionality.
Applicant argues on pages 19-20 on the Remarks that “The requisite explanation is not whether the prior art references could be or can be combined but rather why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references and also how the combination of the references was supposed to work". However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner specifically in the Office Action explains the reason and the motivation to combine the cited Prior Arts by stating: “It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the user selection of a particular crossing equipment, and request to process the selection as taught by Slover, in order to improve railroad safety”. Kelgernon discloses an automated proximity alert system but lacks a manual interface for a user to selectively send an activation signal to test the crossing equipment. Slover, on the other hand, teaches a system that includes a user interface to submit or send a request (receiving by the system) of a “test mode activation request” to place the components of the railroad crossing system into a diagnostic test state, such as running a gate lamp test (activating a signal), and the reason to do so is to improve the safety of the railroad crossing system. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the manual test mode activation interface (by a user/worker) as taught by Slover into the automated crossing signal system of Kelgernon. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so to allow authorized personnel/user to manually run on-demand diagnostic tests on the crossing signals (as taught by Slover) without having to wait for a train to approach to trigger the system automatically. This modification enhances the maintenance and overall improve the safety of Kelgernon’s system.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 8 and 15 without presenting additional arguments, a similar response applies.
The remaining arguments regarding the dependent claims on pages 21-22 on the remarks with respect to independent claims without presenting additional arguments, a similar response applies.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 8-9, 12-14, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kelgernon (US 2019/0279506) in view of Slover (US 2026/0008488).
Regarding claim 1, Kelgernon discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A railroad crossing signal activation system comprising: one or more memory units configured to store a plurality of records of railroad crossing signals; (Kelgernon, Paras. [0050]-[0052], [0072], and Figs. 1-3, “fixed locations are stored in the maps and fixed location database”, “The system app is designed to provide proximity alerts and the GPS location of emergency vehicles, trains, and fixed emergency locations within a minimum alert distance”, “… a GPS tracker database, and maps and fixed location database …”, “fixed emergency locations, such as rail road crossings, … are also incorporated into the proximity alerts”, which teaches the fixed location database used to store railroad crossing locations and associated records).
and one or more computer processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memory units (Kelgernon, Paras. [0050]-[0052], [0072]-[0078], and Figs. 1-3, “system app, chip database, GPS tracker database, network”, “system app uses the network to communicate to databeses and receive real time location data”, which teaches the system app performs processing using stored database information).
and configured to: determine a physical location of a client system; (Kelgernon, Paras. [0046]-[0052], [0072]-[0078], Claim 1(a), and Figs. 1-3, “system app uses the network to access the maps and fixed locations database to determine the user’s location”, “… tracks in real time the location of a user…”, “… user’s location is within a minimum alert distance…”, which teaches a location of a client system).
determine, from the plurality of records of railroad crossing signals, an eligible railroad crossing signal that is within a predetermined distance of the physical location of the client system; (Kelgernon, Paras. [0045]-[0046], [0053]-[0056], [0063]-[0066], [0072]-[0078], Claim 1(b), and Figs. 1-3, “… the GPS location of emergency vehicles, trains, and fixed emergency locations within a minimum alert distance”, “… the rail road crossing alert is initiated whenever the front or rear of the train is within 200 yards”, “… the initiation distance for proximity alerts at rail road crossings is 500 yards, 400 yards, or 300 yards”, “The system app uses the map and location data to compute distance to fixed emergency, GPS, and chip locations in real time”, “determines each distance between the user and locations of emergency vehicles, trains, and fixed emergencies”, which teaches a distance between a user/client and a railroad crossing fixed location and determines when the location falls within a threshold distance).
send identification information about the eligible railroad crossing signal to the client system; (Kelgernon, Paras. [0046], [0050], [0078], Claim 1(e), and Figs. 1-3, “… the system will alert the user, and use GPS to display and show the locations of each on the user's device”, “… fixed emergency locations, such as rail road crossings, …. will be shown on the map display using a different type of icon (e.g., post) and using a different color (e.g., blue)”, “The system app communicates the map and location data to the user's device in real time”, “…transmits the locations, routes, and proximity alerts to the user's device…”, which teaches the crossing location information is transmitted to the user’s device).
Kelgernon does not explicitly disclose:
receive, from the client system, an indication of a user selection to activate the eligible railroad crossing signal;
and send an activation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal in response to receiving the indication of the user selection to activate the eligible railroad crossing signal.
However, Slover teaches:
receive, from the client system, an indication of a user selection to activate the eligible railroad crossing signal; (Slover, Paras. [0084]-[0085], [0091]-[0095], “… the maintenance worker may interact with a selection interface … to select a segment of a track that corresponds to the one or more components of the gate system 40 targeted for temporary deactivation …”, “…the selection interface may be a user interface that displays selectable representations of segments of tracks …”, “Each selectable representation of a segment is capable of being selected by the maintenance worker to initiate a service request”, “…a track selection signal is generated and provided to the jumper panel”, “… upon receiving the track selection signal, each processor 48-1, 48-2 may retrieve a locally stored configuration table that defines valid track identifiers and any associated constraints (e.g., which track segments are eligible for removal from service at a given location)”, which teaches receiving and processing of the selection of the eligible railroad crossing signals).
and send an activation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal in response to receiving the indication of the user selection to activate the eligible railroad crossing signal. (Slover, Paras. [0070]-[0071], [0084]-[0085], [0091]-[0095], “… Upon receipt of an approval message from the dispatch center server 38, the crossing prediction device 32 may orchestrate disabling service of one or more components of the gate system 40”, and teaches that crossing controller receives instructions to activate/deactivate equipment (crossing signal)).
Kelgernon and Slover are combinable, because both are from the same field of railroad crossing control and safety systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the user selection of a particular crossing equipment, and request to process the selection as taught by Slover, in order to improve railroad safety.
As per claims 8, and 15, claims 8, and 15 encompass same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claims 8, and 15 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kelgernon and Slover disclose the limitations of claim1. Kelgernon and Slover disclose:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to: continuously monitor a current physical location of the client system after sending the activation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal; (Kelgernon, Paras. [0046], [0050], [0078], Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3, teaches track in real time of the location of the user, receive real time GPS location, compute real time distance).
and send a deactivation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal (Slover, Paras. [0064]-[0067], [0070]-[0071], [0084]-[0085], [0091]-[0095], [0107]-[0108], “… Crossing controller 34 may control operation of one or more components of the gate system 40 by sending instructions that cause actuation of a railroad crossing gate”, and teaches continuous condition monitoring and control actions when the condition changes).
when a distance between the eligible railroad crossing signal and the current physical location of the client system exceeds the predetermined distance. (Kelgernon, Paras. [0045]-[0046], [0050]-[0053], [0064]-[0066], [0078], Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3, teaches 500, 400, 300 yards threshold, shows that once the distance exceeds the threshold, the activation condition doesn’t exist (deactivation)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 encompass same or similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claims 9 and 16 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Kelgernon and Slover disclose the limitations of claim1. Kelgernon discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the physical location of the client system comprises latitude and longitude coordinates from a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit in the client system. (Kelgernon, Paras. [0045]-[0050], [0068]-[0069], [0072]-[0078], Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3, teaches determining the location of the user (client device), and tracking the user in real time. Also teaches a client device location being used for crossing selection via GPS location determination).
As per claims 12 and 19, claims 12 and 19 encompass same or similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Kelgernon and Slover disclose the limitations of claim1. Kelgernon discloses:
The system of Claim 5, wherein determining the eligible railroad crossing signal that is within the predetermined distance of the physical location of the client system comprises comparing latitude and longitude coordinates stored in each of the plurality of records of railroad crossing signals to the latitude and longitude coordinates of the client system. (Kelgernon, Paras. [0045]-[0051], [0053]-[0056], [0075]-[0079], Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3, “… fixed emergency locations, such as rail road crossings …”, “… fixed locations are stored in the maps and fixed location database”, (i.e., plurality of records of railroad crossing signals). “… when the user's location is within a minimum alert distance to the proximity of emergency vehicles, trains, or fixed emergency locations, the system will alert the user, and use GPS to display and show the locations of each on the user's device”, (i.e., the client device location), “The system app uses the map and location data to compute distance to fixed emergency, GPS, and chip locations in real time. The system app determines proximity alerts when the computed distance is equal to or less than the alert distance in real time”, which teaches that the system obtains the user’s location, fixed location data, computes distance between them, and determines whether is within the threshold distance. Therefore, distance computations between GPS data requires comparing the coordinates associated with the fixed location and the coordinates associated with the user. “… within a minimum alert distance…”, (i.e., predetermined distance threshold)).
As per claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 encompass same or similar scope as claim 6. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Kelgernon and Slover disclose the limitations of claim1. Kelgernon and Slover disclose:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the identification information about the eligible railroad crossing signal comprises one or more of: a street name associated with the eligible railroad crossing signal; a Department of Transportation (DOT) identification number of the eligible railroad crossing signal; and a unique asset identification number of the eligible railroad crossing signal. (Kelgernon, Paras. [0045]-[0051], [0053]-[0056], [0075]-[0079], Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3, teaches database record identifying railroad crossing, and displaying crossing information to the user).
(Slover, Paras. [0086]-[0089], [0091]-[0097], “The service request may include data such as the selected track identifier,…”, “…upon receiving the track selection signal, each processor 48-1, 48-2 may retrieve a locally stored configuration table that defines valid track identifiers and any associated constraints …”, “… the jumper panel 30… may store a track identifier or track segment identifier corresponding to the segment of the track that has been selected for the service request”, (i.e., one or more … a unique asset identification number)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 14, claim 14 encompass same or similar scope as claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 7.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kelgernon (US 2019/0279506) in view of Slover (US 2026/0008488), and further in view of Caspe-Detzer (US 2008/0291001).
Regarding claim 3, Kelgernon and Slover disclose the limitations of claim1. Kelgernon and Caspe-Detzer disclose:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to: start a first timer upon sending the activation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal; (Kelgernon teaches activation of a selected railroad crossing signal after user selection and transmission of an activation command.
upon expiration of the first timer: start a second timer; (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0007], [0024], [0034]-[0036], and Figs. 1-3, teaches timer expiration and initiation of subsequent timer driven states).
send one or more instructions to display a deactivation user interface on the client system, (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0018]-[0026], and Figs. 1-3, teaches displaying a time based UI to the user).
the deactivation user interface comprising: a first user-selectable element configured to continue activation of the eligible railroad crossing signal; (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0020]-[0026], [0030]-[0036], and Figs. 1-3, teaches user selectable controls for modifying the countdown. An increment button extends the active state by extending the timer).
a second user-selectable element configured to deactivate the eligible railroad crossing signal; (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0020]-[0026], [0033]-[0038], and Figs. 1-3, teaches a decrement button and commands reducing the countdown value where a user reduces the timer toward expiration, causing the deactivation. Therefore, countdown expires.).
and a visual indication of the second timer; (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0019]-[0027], and Figs. 1-3, teaches a display countdown which is the visual indication of the timer).
send a deactivation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal upon expiration of the second timer; (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0036]-[0038], and Figs. 1-3, a countdown value expires, and teaches a transition into an inactive state).
send the deactivation signal to the eligible railroad crossing signal upon receiving an indication of selection of the second user-selectable element; (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0020]-[0026], [0030]-[0036], and Figs. 1-3, teaches user selectable controls or deactivation by decrement or deactivating selection by the user).
and restart the first timer upon receiving an indication of selection of the first user-selectable element. (Caspe-Detzer, Paras. [0020]-[0026], [0030]-[0031], and Figs. 1-3, teaches that incrementing the timer extends or restarts the countdown window). Para. [0028], if the countdown value is below a predetermined threshold of 1 minute, a different color is displayed: first timer= overall countdown, second timer = during the last 1 minute threshold, user can increment timer (continue activation or start new) or decrement timer (terminate sooner)= second timer.
Kelgernon, Slover and Caspe-Detzer are combinable, because all are from the same field of computer implemented control systems through a user interface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the timer based interface for user as taught by Caspe-Detzer, in order to improve railroad safety by allowing a controlled extension or termination of activation time of a crossing equipment.
As per claims 10 and 17, claims 10 and 17 encompass same or similar scope as claim 3. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kelgernon (US 2019/0279506) in view of Slover (US 2026/0008488), and further in view of Lyons (US 11,138,870).
Regarding claim 4, Kelgernon and Slover disclose the limitations of claim1. Kelgernon and Lyons disclose:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to: determine, from the plurality of records of railroad crossing signals, that no railroad crossing signals are within the predetermined distance of the physical location of the client system; (Lyons, Col. 6, ll. 18-24, Col. 7, ll. 1-5, Col. 8, ll. 8-17, 29-44, “… situations in which multiple users … instructed by on-demand crossing program 200 to merge for a combined crossing, based on a pre-determined and configurable distance threshold between requesting users”, (i.e., predetermined distance)).
and in response to determining that no railroad crossing signals are within the predetermined distance of the physical location of the client system, send one or more instructions to display a message on the client system, the message indicating that no eligible railroad crossing signals are within range of the client system. (Lyons, Col. 6, ll. 18-24, Col. 7, ll. 1-5, 42-50, Col. 8, ll. 8-17, 29-44, Col. 12, ll. 18-41, “On-demand crossing program 200 sends a “wait to cross” message to the user interface of the smart device of the requesting user (decision step 220)”. Therefore, teaches generating multiple messages based on the condition of the crossing availability, and displaying a message in regard to the specific condition to whether it is safe to cross).
Kelgernon, Slover and Lyons are combinable, because all are from the same field of computer implemented control systems through a user interface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to notify the user when no crossing signal satisfies the predetermined distance as taught by Lyons, in order to improve railroad safety by informing a user of whether the crossing conditions are unsafe.
As per claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 encompass same or similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 4.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Rempel (CA 2928783) describes database of a plurality of event entries, each respective event entry comprising closing start time and closing stop time of one event at a respective monitored railroad grade crossing closed by the one event.
Christie (US 2005/0192720) describes a geographic information system (GIS) displays geographic roadway data, geographic track data and geographic train position data. The GIS includes a GIS database having static roadway and track data.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights