DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/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.
Regarding claim 12 the limitation “a registration device” is unclear because claim 12 depends from claim 1 which also introduces a registration device. It is unclear if these are the same or different registration devices. Amending the claims to positively affirm if these are the same or different devices would overcome this rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lefebvre et al. (EP 3074831 B1, herein after referred to as Lefebvre).
Regarding claim 1 Lefebvre teaches a method for determining a wagon sequence of a track-guided vehicle combination of vehicles, which comprises the steps of: performing a registration process in which wagon identifiers of each of the vehicles are recorded one after another in a sequence of the wagon sequence (paragraph 72, “the train-based mesh network 107 can deduce the order and the orientation of the railcars) with a registration device in a computer-aided, contactless manner (paragraph 72, “radio frequency (RF) sensor”), which comprises the sub-steps of: a) triggering, via an activation device, a respective registration step of the registration process in each of the vehicles, in which a registration signal of a relevant vehicle of the vehicles each containing a wagon identifier is transmitted to the registration device with a first transmitter device and stored therein (FIG. 1: registration signal from 101 to registration device 102; paragraph 72); b) storing a point in time for recording the wagon identifier in the registration device, in addition to the wagon identifier for each of the vehicles (paragraph 72, “The train-based mesh network 107 analyzes the timing of the event messages which are received from each CMU 101 installed on a railcar 103 as it passed an active AEI tag reader 127”); and c) determining a first result of the wagon sequence by sorting the wagon identifiers in a chronological order of times of recording after all the vehicles have been recorded (paragraph 72, “From this, the train-based mesh network 107 can deduce the order and the orientation of the railcars 103 in train consist 109. This can be determined”).
Regarding claim 2 Lefebvre teaches prompting the first transmitter device only to transmit the wagon identifier if, when an identification device approaches, the identification device has received an identification signal containing an identification code with a first receiver device (paragraph 72, “The AEI tag readers 127 use an excitation frequency in the 902 to 915 MHz range. In normal railroad operations the excitation signal is only used to energize the AEI tag installed on the railcar 103 and provide energy to backscatter the signal, which contains the tag identifier and any other information programmed into the AEI tag.”).
Regarding claim 9 Lefebvre teaches storing a start time and an end time for the registration process in the registration device (paragraph 72, “The train-based mesh network 107 analyzes the timing of the event messages which are received”).
Regarding claim 10 Lefebvre teaches that a wagon identifier for the vehicle is stored in a telematics facility (FIG. 1: 101) configured: f) to be activated in accordance with step a) according to claim 1 (see claim 1); g) said first transmitter device set up to transmit the wagon identifier of the vehicle to the registration device (paragraph 72, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 11 Lefebvre teaches an activation device which can be triggered via an activation interface in order to send an activation signal to said first transmitter device (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 12 Lefebvre teaches a registration device for registering a vehicle, the registration device configured: h) to store transmitted wagon identifiers of vehicles in accordance with step a) according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and i) to store times for a recording of the wagon identifiers (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 13 Lefebvre teaches an identification device for identifying a user on a vehicle (paragraph 72, AEI tag reader 127), the identification device being configured to send an identification signal containing an identification code to a first receiver device according to claim 2 when the first receiver device is approached (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 14 Lefebvre teaches a non-transitory computer program comprising program commands which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 15 Lefebvre teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which the computer program product according to claim 14 is stored (built into the structure which enables claims 1 & 14).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefebvre et al. (EP 3074831 B1, herein after referred to as Lefebvre).
Regarding claim 3 Lefebvre does not explicitly teach that the registration device does not complete the registration process before a recording of all the vehicles of the track-guided vehicle combination has taken place a second time and a second result of the wagon sequence has been determined. However, official notice is taken that it is commonly known in the data processing art to perform multiple redundant checks to detect errors and ensure only correct information is acted upon. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not completed the registration process before a second recording result had been determined in order to detect errors and enhance safety and reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-8 is/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:
Regarding claim 4, no prior art made of record teaches a method for determining wagon sequence of a track-guided vehicle combination comprising wherein after a second recording of all the vehicles in each case is complete, determining the wagon sequence again by sorting the wagon identifiers in a reverse chronological order of the times of recording.
Regarding claim 6, no prior art made of record teaches a method for determining wagon sequence of a track-guided vehicle combination wherein first activation devices are used on each of the vehicles for recording the wagon sequence for determining the first result; second activation devices are used on each of the vehicles for recording the wagon sequence for determining the second result; and the first activation devices are mounted on a respective one side of the vehicles and the second activation devices are mounted on a respective other side of the vehicles.
Regarding claim 7, no prior art made of record teaches a method for determining wagon sequence of a track-guided vehicle combination comprising carrying out a plausibility test for a determined wagon sequence, which includes the sub-steps of: d) comparing the first result of the wagon sequence with the second result of the wagon sequence; and e) releasing a compared result for further processing only if the first result matches the second result.
A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach methods for determining a wagon sequence of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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 J Morano IV 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/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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights