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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 14, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 23 requires both "using a multiple unit hierarchy as the car hierarchy" and "using a multiple unit hierarchy as the train hierarchy." Claim 22 treats the car hierarchy and train hierarchy as distinct endpoints, while the specification describes the multiple-unit hierarchy as an intermediate level between the car and train levels. It is unclear whether claim 23 collapses all three levels, uses two different multiple-unit hierarchies, or intends transmission through an intermediate multiple-unit hierarchy. The scope of the claimed hierarchy relationship is therefore not reasonably certain.
Suggested Correction - Claim 23
Applicant may consider reciting transmission from a car hierarchy through a multiple-unit hierarchy to a train hierarchy, and the reverse direction for status information, if consistent with applicant's intent and the original disclosure.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - DE10107571A1.
Reference 2 - DE102012013059A1.
Reference 3 - US20140183304A1.
Reference 4 - AU2016201090A1.
Reference 5 - EP2420427B1.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
Reference 1 was published May 23, 2002, before the May 16, 2022 effective filing date of the claimed invention, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A method for the automated determination of train integrity of a train, the method comprising: (L2) determining a rear car of the train; (L3) transmitting data of the rear car to a first central control unit of the train during a movement of the train, the data being transmitted continuously throughout the movement and the transmission of the data being configured to permit the data to be assigned to the rear car; (L4) generating status information based on the data of the rear car, status information indicating correct train integrity being generated upon the first central control unit receiving correct data from the rear car, and (L5) status information indicating loss of train integrity being generated upon the first central control unit not receiving correct data from the rear car within a predetermined period of time; and (L6) outputting the status information.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses an automated method for checking the completeness or integrity of a coupled rail-vehicle consist. (L2) The system determines the last car and associates that car with its stored last-car number or key. Cars 3.1 and 3.2, directional antennas 1.1 and 1.2, and short-range communication units 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the repeated car-to-car arrangement. (L3) During train operation, the traction-vehicle computer periodically sends a challenge value through the adjacent-car communication chain and receives a response from the last car. Repetition of the challenge and response throughout operation is continuous transmission during movement in the sense claimed, and the stored last-car number or key assigns the returned response to the rear car. (L4) Receipt of the correct response confirms the identified last car and therefore produces a status of correct train completeness. (L5) A missing or incorrect response within the expected periodic response interval is treated as a train-completeness fault and produces the disclosed fault or emergency response. (L6) The safe traction-vehicle computer outputs the verification result and can initiate the emergency-brake response. Reference 1 therefore discloses every limitation of claim 16.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises transmitting the data transmitted by the rear car via a communication channel being at least one of configured to be assigned to the rear car or including identification information configured to be assigned to the rear car.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 1 routes the last-car response through the defined chain of directional antennas 1.1 and 1.2 and communication units 2.1 and 2.2 and associates the response with the stored last-car number or key. The communication path is assigned to the identified last car, and the number or key is identification information assigned to that rear car. The alternative limitation of claim 18 is therefore disclosed.
________________________________________
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A system for the automated determination of train integrity of a train, the system comprising: (L2) a determination unit configured to determine a rear car of the train; (L3) a data transmission unit configured to transmit data of the rear car to a first central control unit of the train during a movement of the train, the data being transmitted continuously throughout the movement and the transmission of the data being configured to permit the data to be assigned to the rear car; (L4) the first central control unit configured to generate status information based on the data of the rear car, status information indicating correct train integrity being generated upon the first central control unit receiving correct data from the rear car, and (L5) status information indicating loss of train integrity being generated upon the first central control unit not receiving correct data from the rear car within a predetermined period of time; and (L6) a data interface configured to output the status information.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses a computer-assisted system for checking train completeness. (L2) Its safe traction-vehicle computer and stored last-car information provide the function that determines the last or rear car. (L3) Directional antennas 1.1 and 1.2 and short-range communication units 2.1 and 2.2 form the data-transmission unit that periodically carries the assigned last-car challenge and response throughout consist operation. (L4) The safe traction-vehicle computer is the first central control unit and generates a correct-completeness result when it receives the correct response from the identified last car. (L5) The same computer generates a train-completeness fault when a correct response is absent within the expected period. (L6) The computer provides the result or emergency-response output and therefore includes the claimed data interface. Reference 1 also discloses computer, processor, and storage implementation for these functions.
________________________________________
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A non-transitory computer program product, comprising instructions which, upon the program being executed by a computer, (L2) cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 16.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses a computer-implemented last-car verification process executed by the safe traction-vehicle computer, including stored information and processor operation. (L2) The executed instructions perform every step of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. The disclosed computer program implementation necessarily embodies instructions that cause the computer to carry out the anticipated method.
________________________________________
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions which, upon the program being executed by a computer, (L2) cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 16.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses stored instructions used by the safe traction-vehicle computer to implement the periodic challenge, last-car response verification, and resulting fault logic. (L2) Execution of those stored instructions performs every step of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. The disclosed computer and storage implementation therefore anticipates the claimed non-transitory medium.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises determining the rear car by determining which car of the train is not coupled at one of its two couplings and whether the car which is not coupled at one of its two couplings is occupied by a driver and, in an event that a car does not have one of its two couplings coupled and the car which does not have one of its two couplings coupled is not occupied, the car which does not have one of its two couplings coupled is determined to be the rear car.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 2 discloses automatically coupled rail vehicles, expressly including multiple units, and nose-coupling unit 26 that provides the mechanical, pneumatic, electrical, control-line, and communication-bus connections at a vehicle end. Central control unit 16 receives both a coupling-status signal and an occupied-driver-cab signal. The interconnected control units establish a train-wide association initiated from the occupied driver's compartment. Thus, the reference supplies existing signals identifying an uncoupled vehicle end and the driver-occupied leading end. In a coupled consist, the other uncoupled end that is not driver-occupied is the rear end.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's coupling-status and occupied-driver-cab signals when Reference 1 determines its last car because those signals directly distinguish the two outer ends of the coupled consist and prevent the occupied leading end from being selected as the rear. Both references concern train-wide control following the coupling of rail vehicles, and the combination uses already available end-state signals for their known identification functions to produce the predictable rear-car determination recited in claim 17.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises determining the rear car and the first central control unit, after a coupling operation in which a plurality of cars have been uncoupled from the train or a plurality of cars have been coupled to the train.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 3 discloses train 10 formed from coupled units 100, 200, and 300, vehicle onboard controllers 102, train-end relays 104 and 106, and integrity lines TI-11, TI-12, TI-21, and TI-22. The disclosed controller arrangement detects an intended or unintended coupling or uncoupling, identifies the resulting train-end configuration, and updates the operative consist configuration. Reapplying Reference 1's last-car and controlling-computer selection after the detected change determines the new rear car and first central control unit.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to cause Reference 1's last-car verification system to redetermine the rear car and controlling central unit when Reference 3 detects that cars have been coupled or uncoupled. Continuing to use the pre-change rear car or control end after the train composition changes would defeat the train-integrity purpose common to both references. Redetermination is the predictable safety-control response to Reference 3's changed consist configuration.
________________________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises forming the train with a plurality of multiple units, each multiple unit including at least one central control unit and selecting the central control unit of the multiple unit or end car having an occupied driver's cab during the train movement as the first central control unit.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 2 discloses a train association formed from at least two coupled rail vehicles, expressly including multiple units. Each unit includes central control unit 16, the control units are interconnected through coupling unit 26 and communication bus 24, and the train-wide association is initiated and operated from the occupied driver's compartment. Reference 2 also provides a master-and-slave relationship among the coupled control units. Selecting the central control unit associated with the occupied driver's cab as the master or first central control unit supplies the added limitation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement Reference 1's last-car verifier in Reference 2's coupled multiple-unit architecture and select the occupied-cab control unit as the first central control unit. Reference 2 already uses that cab to initiate and control the train-wide association, while Reference 1 requires an authoritative leading computer to evaluate the rear-car response. The selection provides one known control point for the active train and predictably prevents competing integrity determinations.
________________________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 20, (L2) which further comprises transmitting the data from the rear car from a central control unit of the multiple unit including the rear car to the first central control unit of another multiple unit.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 2 disclose every limitation of claim 20 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 20. (L2) Reference 2 interconnects the central control units 16 of the coupled rail vehicles or multiple units through coupling unit 26 and train-wide communication bus 24. The control units exchange messages or telegrams after coupling. Routing Reference 1's assigned rear-car response from the control unit of the rear multiple unit across that existing bus to the occupied-cab first control unit of another multiple unit is the disclosed inter-unit communication applied to the integrity data.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to transmit Reference 1's rear-car response over Reference 2's train-wide communication bus from the rear unit's control unit to the occupied-cab first control unit because Reference 1 requires that response to reach the authoritative verifier and Reference 2 provides the established inter-unit path for control telegrams. The combination uses the existing coupled-unit network for the same control-data function and yields one train-wide integrity result.
________________________________________
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises at least one of transmitting at least the data of the rear car from a car hierarchy to a train hierarchy using a data transmission protocol or outputting the status information from a train hierarchy to a car hierarchy using a data transmission protocol.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 2 discloses vehicle-level central control unit 16, subordinate functional units 18, interconnected train-wide control units, and messages or telegrams transmitted through coupling unit 26 and communication bus 24. The vehicle or car-level controller supplies the car hierarchy, while the master control-unit association supplies the train hierarchy. Carrying Reference 1's car-specific last-car data from the rear vehicle controller to the train-leading controller over the disclosed bus and protocol path meets the recited alternative.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to carry Reference 1's rear-car data from Reference 2's vehicle-level controller to its train-wide master controller using the existing message protocol and communication bus. Reference 1 requires the last-car response to reach a central verifier, while Reference 2 provides the known hierarchy and protocol path for exchanging coupled-vehicle control data. The combination predictably integrates the integrity message into the existing train-control architecture without adding a separate network.
________________________________________
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises entirely carrying out the generation of the status information and the outputting of the status information in less than one second.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 1 periodically tests the last-car response and treats a missing or incorrect response as a fault. The reporting and decision interval controls how quickly the status is generated and output and is therefore a result-effective variable. Reference 1 does not expressly require completion in less than one second, but shortening the known periodic interval to obtain a faster safety response is a routine optimization of the same control loop.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select a reporting and processing interval below one second for Reference 1's periodic last-car check when rapid detection of consist separation is required. Shortening the known interval predictably reduces detection latency, and the application identifies no critical or unexpected technical result at the one-second boundary.
________________________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 24, (L2) which further comprises setting time intervals separating a transmission of successive sets of data of the rear car to be shorter than 1 second, and (L3) setting the predetermined time period after which status information indicating loss of train integrity is generated if no data from the rear car is received by the first central control unit to be longer than a time required for transmission of consecutive sets of data of the rear car.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses the method of claim 16 and the optimized subsecond status interval of claim 24 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 24. (L2) Reference 1 periodically transmits successive challenge-and-response data sets from the last car. Selecting a subsecond transmission interval is the same latency optimization applied to the known periodic messages. (L3) Setting the loss timeout longer than one message interval permits at least one expected message opportunity before declaring a fault. Transmission interval and timeout are recognized result-effective variables because their relationship controls detection speed and tolerance of a transient missed response.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to transmit Reference 1's periodic last-car data at subsecond intervals and set the fault timeout longer than the interval between consecutive transmissions. That relationship predictably permits a new response opportunity before a loss status is generated, thereby reducing false loss indications while retaining rapid detection. The selected values are ordinary tuning of Reference 1's known periodic challenge and timeout functions.
________________________________________
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises outputting the status information to a European Vital Computer control unit.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 4 discloses railway signaling system 10 having an onboard European Vital Computer that receives and uses train-integrity information, transmits a position report containing that information to a Radio Block Centre, and receives movement authority. The European Vital Computer is therefore the claimed recipient of train-integrity status information.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to output Reference 1's train-integrity result to Reference 4's onboard European Vital Computer because that computer is the established safety controller that uses and reports train-integrity information in the disclosed railway signaling architecture. The combination provides a known integrity signal to its known safety-control recipient for the predictable purpose of controlling and reporting train movement authority.
________________________________________
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 16, (L2) which further comprises carrying out the generation of the status information by additionally checking an emergency brake loop assigned to the rear car.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 16. (L2) Reference 5 discloses coupling-state signals S1-S3 from coupling devices 241-243 evaluated by control device 100. When an unintended uncoupling is detected, the control device interrupts or evaluates the safety or emergency-brake loop in the still-leading or separated train part. The loop state is therefore an additional physical indication of the same separation event detected by Reference 1's missing last-car response.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to check Reference 5's emergency-brake-loop state when Reference 1 generates train-integrity status because both signals indicate whether the rear portion remains connected to the train. Using the independent physical loop to corroborate the message-based last-car result predictably improves reliability and reduces the risk that a single communication fault is mistaken for an actual separation.
________________________________________
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 27, (L2) which further comprises upon the emergency brake loop being open or defective, generating status information indicating loss of train integrity and, (L3) upon the emergency brake loop being intact, again implementing a predefined wait time for data from the rear car.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 5 disclose every limitation of claim 27 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 27. (L2) Reference 5 detects an unwanted uncoupling through coupling-state signals S1-S3 and interruption of the associated safety or emergency-brake loop. An open or defective loop therefore corroborates separation and supports generating a loss status. (L3) Reference 1 already waits for the periodic last-car response before declaring a fault. When Reference 5's loop remains intact and has not corroborated separation, repeating Reference 1's predefined message wait is the complementary validation branch and avoids immediately declaring a false loss.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to declare loss when Reference 5's emergency-brake loop is open and to repeat Reference 1's existing response wait when the loop remains intact. The open loop independently corroborates the separation event, while an intact loop counsels one additional message opportunity before a disruptive loss determination. The two branches predictably combine physical-loop and communication evidence to improve the reliability of the same train-integrity decision.
________________________________________
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A train, comprising (L2) a plurality of multiple units, and (L3) the system according to claim 29.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses the coupled rail-vehicle consist that is a train. (L2) Reference 2 discloses a train association formed from at least two coupled rail vehicles and expressly identifies the rail vehicles as multiple units. (L3) Reference 1 discloses every limitation of the train-integrity system of claim 29 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 29. Installing that system in the coupled multiple-unit train of Reference 2 supplies the complete claimed train.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 1's last-car integrity system in Reference 2's train formed from a plurality of coupled multiple units because Reference 1 expressly verifies the completeness of a coupled rail-vehicle consist and Reference 2 supplies a known multiple-unit consist architecture. The combination applies the known safety system to the same type of coupled train for the predictable purpose of detecting loss of the rear portion.
________________________________________
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The train according to claim 30, (L2) wherein each multiple unit includes a respective central control unit configured to receive status information based on the data of the rear car, (L3) in an event that data from the rear car is received by the first central control unit, status information is generated indicating correct train integrity, and (L4) in the event that no data from the rear car is received by the first central control unit, status information is generated indicating loss of train integrity.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 2 disclose every limitation of claim 30 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 30. (L2) Reference 2 provides central control unit 16 in each coupled rail vehicle or multiple unit and interconnects the control units through coupling unit 26 and communication bus 24, allowing the units to receive the train-wide result. (L3) Reference 1 generates correct-completeness status when the first safe computer receives the correct rear-car response. (L4) Reference 1 generates a fault or loss response when the correct rear-car data is absent. Distributing that status through Reference 2's existing train-wide controller network supplies the added system functions.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to distribute Reference 1's correct-or-loss integrity status to each of Reference 2's interconnected multiple-unit control units because those units already exchange train-wide control telegrams over bus 24. Sharing one authoritative integrity result predictably lets every coupled unit apply the same safety state and avoids inconsistent local determinations.
________________________________________
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The train according to claim 30, (L2) wherein each end car of a multiple unit is configured to determine the status of its couplings and the occupancy status of a driver's cab and to transmit data to a central control unit.
Analysis
(L1) References 1 and 2 disclose every limitation of claim 30 for the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 30. (L2) Reference 2 locates nose-coupling unit 26 and the associated coupling-status control line at a rail-vehicle end, supplies an occupied-driver-cab signal, and transmits those signals to central control unit 16. Applying that repeated end-car arrangement to the coupled multiple units provides each end car with coupling-state and cab-occupancy reporting to its central control unit.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide Reference 2's coupling-status and occupied-cab reporting arrangement at each end car of the multiple-unit train used with Reference 1. The same signals are needed at each possible train end because coupling can change the active leading and rear ends. Repeating the disclosed end-state reporting at the multiple-unit ends predictably permits correct train-wide configuration and rear-car identification after coupling.
________________________________________
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 22, but contains subject matter that would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all limitations of claims 16 and 22 and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the complete clarified combination of routing rear-car data through distinct car, multiple-unit, and train hierarchy levels, verifying the data or status by checksums, and transmitting it using architecture patterns defined for safety integrity level SIL 2. EP2814193B1 discloses a PROFIsafe checksum but does not supply the claimed train-hierarchy relationship. The missing limitation is not supplied by unsupported characterization as routine protocol design.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Canceled Claims: 1-15.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 112: 23.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 102: 16, 18, 29, 33, and 34.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103: 17, 19-22, 24-28, and 30-32.
Objected-to Claims: 23.
Allowed Claims: None.
________________________________________
Conclusion
EP2050647A1 was not used because its train-completeness teachings are less direct than Reference 1 for the claimed periodic assigned rear-car response and do not add the missing hierarchy limitation of claim 23. EP2814193B1 was not used because, although it teaches a PROFIsafe checksum, it does not disclose the claimed car-to-multiple-unit-to-train hierarchy relationship.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Morano can be reached at (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/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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights