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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100076631 to Mian.
Regarding claim 1, Mian discloses a system for allocating a plurality of railcars in a rail yard based upon analysis of contents of the plurality of railcars, the system comprising:
a network interface configured to communicatively couple the system to a plurality of mobile computing devices for a plurality of rail yard workers (e.g. see [0096];
a LiDAR sensor configured to create images of the plurality of railcars (e.g. see [0066] - [0067]);
an image database configured to store the images of the plurality of railcars (as evident from at least [0068] “recognize certain stored patterns”);
an analysis unit configured to analyze the images of the plurality of railcars (e.g. [0035], [0067], [0068]);
a notification module configured to send at least one of: the images of the plurality of railcars or the analysis of the images of the plurality of railcars to at least one of the plurality of mobile computing devices (e.g. see [0096]);
one or more tangible, non-transitory memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the system, cause the system to:
generate the images of the plurality of railcars (e.g. see [0066] - [0067]);
send the images of the plurality of railcars to the analysis unit (e.g. see [0053] describing sending evaluated data to management component 24; also see [0096]);
analyze the images of the plurality of railcars (e.g. [0035], [0067], [0068]);
based on the analysis, determine a contents status for each railcar of the plurality of railcars (e.g. see [0053]); and
transmit at least one notification to at least one of the plurality of mobile computing devices (see [0053]),
each of the at least one notification including at least one of: one or more of the railcar contents status or one or more of the images of the plurality of railcars; wherein,
in response to the transmitting of the at least one notification, the plurality of railcars are sorted to at least two different locations via at least one of the plurality of rail yard workers (see [0053], [0054]),
each of the at least two different locations based on a respective one of the one or more of the railcar contents status. (as evident from [0053], [0054])).
BRI comment: the use of “contents…[of the railcar]” is broad enough so that any objects associated with the railcar such as parts requiring maintenance reads on this limitation. It is noted that the claims do not recite contents “within” the railcar body which may require closer analysis of the prior art to determine whether such would continue to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 5, Mian in view of Salter discloses system of Claim 1, wherein the sorting further comprises adjusting one or more train routing devices associated with a track section positioned between a current location of each of the plurality of railcars and at least one of the at least two different locations (see [0053]).
Claims 6 and 11 are commensurate in scope with claim 1 and thus rejected using similar citations / rationale.
Claims 10 and 15 are commensurate in scope with claim 5 and thus rejected using similar citations / rationale.
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) 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mian in view of US 10146226 to Salter et al. (“Salter”).
Regarding claim 2, Mian discloses system of Claim 1, but does not disclose that wherein each of the plurality of railcars comprises an autorack including at least one automobile. Salter discloses such (e.g. see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of managing space within the autorack.
Claims 7 and 12 are commensurate in scope with claim 2 and thus rejected using similar citations / rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Mian in view of Salter discloses system of Claim 2, wherein each of the at least two different locations are located within an autorack facility (e.g. see col. 4, ln 32 to 44 describing components of a facility consistent with the instant specification). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of managing space within more than one autorack.
Claims 8 and 13 are commensurate in scope with claim 3 and thus rejected using similar citations / rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or suggest using “positioning” of a car in an autorack as a basis for moving the autorack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights