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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 21-38 are currently pending.
Priority
The Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under provisional Application No. 62/727,366, filed on 09/05/2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-38 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 23, 25-37, 39, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding instant claim 21, claims 21 and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: A portable derail warning light for use with a derail device mounted or positioned on a rail, the derail warning light comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect whether a derail device is in an active position or an inactive position, wherein in the active position a wedge component of the derail device is positioned atop a rail and configured to cause a train traversing the derail device to derail, and wherein in the inactive position the wedge component is not positioned atop the rail leaving the rail unobstructed; a plurality of LEDs, wherein the derail warning light is configured to automatically turn on the plurality of LEDs when the derail device is in the active position; and a mounting device configured to removably attach the derail warning light to the derail device.
Regarding instant claim 22, claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the derail warning light is configured to automatically turn off the plurality of LEDs when the derail device is in the inactive position.
Regarding instant claim 23, claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the derail device comprises a hinged, slide, and/or portable derail device.
Regarding instant claim 24, claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the one or more sensors include one or more orientation sensors.
Regarding instant claim 25, claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the one or more orientation sensors comprise an acceleration sensor, a g-sensor, a tilt sensor, and/or a compass sensor.
Regarding instant claim 26, claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the one or more sensors include a magnetic sensor.
Regarding instant claim 27, claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the derail device includes a mounting section that mounts to the rail and a rotatable base plate adjacent to the mounting section.
Regarding instant claim 28, claim 29 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the mounting section includes a pair of rotating brackets and a rotating pin to connect the base plate to the mounting section.
Regarding instant claim 29, claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the pair of rotating brackets and the rotating pin allow the base plate and the derail device to rotate from the inactive position to the active position.
Regarding instant claim 30, claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the mounting device is a clamp to mechanically attach the derail warning light to a base plate of the derail device
Regarding instant claim 31, claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the mounting device is a clamp to mechanically attach the derail warning light to a handle of the derail device
Regarding instant claim 32, claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the mounting device includes a magnet to magnetically attach the derail warning light to the derail device.
Regarding instant claim 33, claim 35 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: a microprocessor with data storage capabilities for time-stamping and data-logging the position of the derail device.
Regarding instant claim 34, claim 36 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the microprocessor is programmable to include data logging to record and log data generated using the one or more sensors.
Regarding instant claim 35, claim 37 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the microprocessor is included within the derail warning light.
Regarding instant claim 36, claim 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the plurality of LEDs are located around a periphery of the derail warning light.
Regarding instant claim 37, claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: a solar power panel configured to provide power via solar energy to the derail warning light.
Regarding instant claim 38, claim 41 of U.S. Patent No. 12116029 B2 teaches: the one or more sensors are within a base of the derail warning light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 28 and 29 recite the limitation "the base plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the base plate” has been construed as “the rotating base plate” as recited in claim 27.
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) 21-23, 26-29 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy (US 20170217456 A1).
Regarding claim 21, McCarthy teaches (Fig. 1-4): A portable derail warning light (illumination warning signal from LED panel 66; para. 0031) for use with a derail device (10) mounted or positioned on a rail (22)(Fig. 1), the derail warning light (66) comprising: one or more sensors (switch 68 having sensors; para. 0045) configured to detect whether a derail device is in an active position or an inactive position (para. 0029 and 0031), wherein in the active position a wedge component (wedge 28) of the derail device is positioned atop a rail and configured to cause a train traversing the derail device to derail (Fig. 3, para. 0028 and 0031), and wherein in the inactive position the wedge component (28) is not positioned atop the rail leaving the rail unobstructed (Fig. 4; para. 0028); a plurality of LEDs (66)(para. 0051), wherein the derail warning light is configured to automatically turn on the plurality of LEDs when the derail device is in the active position (Fig. 3; para. 0031).
McCarthy does not explicitly teach a mounting device configured to removably attach the derail warning light to the derail device.
However, consider paragraph [0029] of McCarthy, wherein warning light 66 is described as being fixedly attached to the upper surface of base plate 26. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a known mounting device, such as common mounting screws, in the structure of McCarthy to perform the expected mounting function thereof.
Regarding claim 22, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the derail warning light is configured to automatically turn off the plurality of LEDs when the derail device (10) is in the inactive position (automated warning system; Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the derail device (10) comprises a hinged, slide, and/or portable derail device (para. 0046; Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 26, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the one or more sensors (68) include a magnetic sensor (para. 0045).
Regarding claim 27, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the derail device (10) includes a mounting section (at 34) that mounts to the rail (22)(at least indirectly) and a rotatable base plate (neck plate 26) adjacent to the mounting section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the mounting section includes a pair of rotating brackets (rectangular flanges 58) and a rotating pin (64) to connect the base plate (26) to the mounting section (34)(Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 29, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the pair of rotating brackets (58) and the rotating pin (64) allow the base plate (26) and the derail device (10) to rotate from the inactive position to the active position (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 37, McCarthy further teaches (Fig. 1-4): a solar power panel (72) configured to provide power via solar energy to the derail warning light (Fig. 1).
Claims 24-25 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy (US 2017/0217456) in view of Hayes (US 3,544,960).
Regarding claim 24, McCarthy does not explicitly teach that the one or more sensors (68) include one or more orientation sensors.
However, Hayes discloses (Fig. 1-3): warning light 24, 26 including an orientation sensor in the form of position responsive switch 92 provided within the warning light.
In view of Hayes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to alternatively use an orientation sensor in the form of a position responsive switch, similar to that taught by Hayes, in the structure of McCarthy to perform the same expected function and to achieve expected advantages thereof, such as simpler sensor wiring and better reliability.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of McCarthy and Hayes further teaches (Fig. 1-4): the one or more orientation sensors comprise an acceleration sensor, a g-sensor, a tilt sensor, and/or a compass sensor (It is noted that the position responsive switch in the structure of McCarthy, as modified, is an orientation sensor in the form of a tilt sensor; Hayes, Fig. 3).
Regarding instant claim 38, McCarthy teaches (Fig. 1): one or more sensors (68) and a derail warning light (66), but does not explicitly teach the one or more sensors are within a base of the derail warning light.
However, Hayes discloses warning light 24, 26 including an orientation sensor in the form of position responsive switch 92 provided at the base of the warning light (Figs 1 and 3).
In view of Hayes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to alternatively use an orientation sensor in the form of a position responsive switch at the base of the warning light, similar to that taught by Hayes, in the structure of McCarthy to perform the same expected function and to achieve expected advantages thereof, such as simpler sensor wiring and better reliability.
Claims 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Halstead (US 2,475,578).
Regarding claim 30, McCarthy does not explicitly teach that the mounting device is a clamp to mechanically attach the derail warning light to a base plate of the derail device.
However, Clamps for mounting structures are known. Consider for example Halstead, wherein light device 12 (Fig. 8) is mounted on base structure 191 by using clamps 192.
In view of Halstead, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to alternatively mount the warning light device of McCarthy on the base structure by using known clamp(s), similar to that taught by Halstead, wherein warning light can be simply clamped onto the base structure without needing screw holes in the base structure for mounting screws.
Regarding claim 31, the structure of McCarthy, as modified, is considered to include warning light 66 mounted to flanges 58 of base plate 26 via clamps, similar to that taught by Halstead, wherein flanges 58 are readable as handles because they can be used as handles.
Claim 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claim 21 above and further in view of British reference (GB 2 260 397).
Regarding claim 32, McCarthy does not explicitly teach the mounting device includes a magnet to magnetically attach the derail warning light to the derail device.
However, consider the GB reference, wherein warning light 1 can be mounted by using magnet 10. In view of the GB reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to alternatively mount the warning light of McCarthy by using magnet(s), similar to that taught in the British reference, to achieve expected advantages thereof, such as to provide a detachable mounting for more flexible operations.
Claims 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the prior art applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Johnson (US 2017/0018166) and Chinese reference (CN 107075878, provided).
Regarding claim 33, McCarthy does not explicitly teach a microprocessor with data storage capabilities for time-stamping and data-logging the position of the derail device.
The use of a device having data storage capabilities for logging/recording time- stamped event records is well-known. Consider for example the structure of Johnson, wherein activity/event monitor 140 (Fig. 2, para [0039]) including a microprocessor is configured to create and record timestamped records of events (see para [0101]), and the structure of the CN reference, wherein position sensor 332 on locking device 300 is configured to detect locking device positions and create timestamped event records. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the well known concept of providing a device including a known microprocessor capable of detecting and creating timestamped records of events, in the structure of McCarthy for performing the expected function thereof, wherein such timestamped records can later be reviewed for safety/security and/or proper usages/operations.
Regarding claim 34, McCarthy does not explicitly teach the microprocessor is programmable to include data logging to record and log data generated using the one or more sensors.
However, consider the structure of Johnson, e.g., paras [0039] and [0052], wherein the activity/event monitor is programmable, and as shown in Fig. 2 of Johnson, the data can be uploaded through network 220. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the structure of McCarthy, as modified, with similar features for enhancing operational flexibilities.
Claim 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the prior art applied to claim 33 above and further in view of Millar (US 2015/0102739).
Regarding claim 35, the structure of McCarthy, as modified above, include a microprocessor. As to the microprocessor being included in the warning light, consider the lighting device of Millar, wherein microprocessor 108 (paras [0015]-[0017]) is included in light 100. In view of Millar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the microprocessor in the structure of McCarthy, as modified, within the warning light, in a manner similar to that taught by Millar, to achieve a more compact and simplified light unit.
Claim 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Chinese reference (CN 201547535).
Regarding claim 36, McCarthy fails to teach the plurality of LEDs are located around a periphery of the derail warning light.
However, the CN reference discloses a light device (Figs. 2, 4) including a plurality of LEDs 4 located around a periphery of the light device.
In view of the CN reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the light device of McCarthy to include a plurality periphery LEDs, similar to that taught in the CN reference, for enhancing visibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a railway vehicle derail device with derail warning LED lights: US-2458903-A, US-20080022882-A1, US-8529107-B2, US-20150102739-A1, CA 2927486 A1, CA 2241044 C, GB 2288659 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights