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 statements filed February 17, 2025 and May 16, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase based one or more preset conditions omits the word on. Appropriate correction is required.
Suggested Correction - Claim 29
Amend the phrase to recite based on one or more preset conditions.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US20170320507A1
Reference 2 - US20060151672A1
Reference 3 - US20110006912A1
Reference 4 - US20180244292A1
________________________________________
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
17. (L1) A system for worker protection, the system comprises: (L2) a plurality of wayside units configured for placement on or near a track, (L3) each wayside unit comprising one or more circuits; (L4) wherein each wayside unit is configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals, wherein the signals comprise ultra-wideband (UWB) signals; and wherein the plurality of wayside units is configured to: (L5) automatically form a work zone network comprising one or more activated wayside units from the plurality of wayside units, (L6) wherein the one or more activated wayside units are activated in response to at least one activation condition; and (L7) provide in the work zone network, based on communication of UWB signals, worker protection related functions within an area surrounding or in proximity to the plurality of wayside units, wherein providing the worker protection related functions comprises: (L8) obtaining by at least one wayside unit ranging information corresponding to a train traversing the track; and (L9) providing at least a portion of the worker protection related functions based on the ranging information.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 detects train 102 and warns workers 104-106 through devices 115-117. (L2) Reference 1 places modules 107-113 beside track 101. (L3) Reference 1's sensing, processor, radio, timing, and power electronics are circuits (inherent). (L4) Reference 1 supplies module radio links; Reference 2 supplies UWB station 1 and transceiver 2. (L5) Reference 1's FIGS. 5-6 and blocks 502-506 form network 601 with modules 613-617. (L6) Reference 1's connection and synchronization before Active Mode provide the activation condition (inferential). (L7) Reference 1 protects work zone 601; Reference 2 makes the protection link UWB. (L8) Reference 2's station 1 ranges train transceiver 6 using UWB flight time. (L9) The combination uses Reference 2's ranging for Reference 1's threshold warning (inferential).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure Reference 1's trackside train-detection modules with Reference 2's rail-specific UWB transceivers and UWB travel-time ranging because both references address reliable railway safety using communications between fixed trackside equipment and a train. The substitution would have predictably provided Reference 1's worker-warning network with the precise train distance, position, and speed information taught by Reference 2, improving warning timing and reducing false or late alerts while preserving Reference 1's worker-triggered dynamic work-zone architecture.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
18. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) at least one wayside unit of the one or more activated wayside units is configured to communicate with at least one personal device (L11) used or carried by at least one worker within the work zone network, (L12) when providing the worker protection related functions.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 1's FIG. 5 connects a worker device to a module, and FIG. 6 links devices 607-612 through modules 613-617. (L11) Reference 1's devices 115-117 are carried by workers 104-106 within work zone 601. (L12) Reference 1's Active-Mode module/device communications carry the worker warnings.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's direct communication between a participating trackside module and the worker personal device in the UWB-enhanced system because that link identifies the protected workers and delivers the resulting protection information to them.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
19. The system of claim 18, wherein (L13) the at least one wayside unit is configured to communicate with the at least one personal device using ultra-wideband (UWB) signals.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 18 apply to the inherited limitations. (L13) Reference 3's worker device 70 uses UWB RFID transmitter 250 and signal 260 with wayside transceivers 80.
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 3's UWB worker-device signaling for Reference 1's personal-device link because Reference 3 applies UWB RFID to the same rail-worker/wayside communication problem, thereby providing precise worker identification and location while allowing the train-ranging and worker links to share a known UWB radio technology.
________________________________________
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
20. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) at least one wayside unit is an anchor device (L11) that is pre-installed at a particular location near the track.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 2's fixed geolocated station 1 is a UWB ranging anchor. (L11) Reference 1 mounts module 113 on milepost 114 beside track 101; Reference 2 uses known station locations.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to permanently install at least one trackside module at a surveyed fixed location because both references use fixed trackside equipment and a known anchor position is needed to convert radio travel time into reliable train position and distance.
________________________________________
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
21. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) at least one wayside unit is configured to determine, based on the ranging information, (L11) one or both of location and speed of the train.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 2's processing device 8 derives train movement from UWB flight-time ranging. (L11) Reference 2 determines the position and speed of rail vehicle 4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to determine train location and speed from Reference 2's UWB ranging information because those values directly improve Reference 1's estimated-arrival calculation and worker-warning timing.
________________________________________
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
22. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) at least one wayside unit of the one or more activated wayside units is configured to communicate with at least one train-mounted unit (L11) deployed on the train.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 2 directly links fixed-station transceiver 2 with train transceiver 6 by UWB. (L11) Reference 2 places transceiver 6 on rail vehicle 4.
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 direct fixed-station/train-transceiver link in Reference 1's activated trackside modules because that known link is the mechanism by which the desired UWB train ranging is obtained.
________________________________________
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
23. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) the plurality of wayside units is configured to, when providing the worker protection related functions, generate information (L11) relating to the train and/or the work zone network.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 1's active network generates detection, work-zone, arrival, and alert information; Reference 2 adds UWB range data. (L11) Reference 1's information concerns train 102 and network 601; Reference 2's data concerns train 4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to generate and distribute the train, position, speed, arrival, and work-zone information taught by the references because that information is required to coordinate the network's worker-protection decisions and alerts.
________________________________________
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
24. The system of claim 23, wherein (L12) the information comprises control information configured for controlling operation of the train, and wherein (L13) the plurality of wayside units is configured to communicate the control information (L14) to at least one train-mounted unit control.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 23 apply to the inherited limitations. (L12) Reference 2's central station 3 generates speed and itinerary instructions controlling rail vehicles 4. (L13) Reference 2 sends those instructions through fixed stations 1. (L14) Reference 2 delivers the instructions through transceiver 6 to onboard train-control equipment.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to communicate Reference 2's railway-control instructions to the train-mounted control through the same fixed-station/train radio link because the measured train position and speed provide known inputs for controlling the train before it reaches the protected work zone.
________________________________________
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
25. The system of claim 23, wherein (L12) the plurality of wayside units is configured to communicate at least a portion of the information (L13) to at least one personal device used or carried by at least one worker within the work zone network.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 23 apply to the inherited limitations. (L12) Reference 1 communicates train, approach, work-zone, and module information through modules 107-113. (L13) Reference 1 sends that information to worker-carried devices 115-117 in network 601.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to send generated train and work-zone information to the workers' personal devices because Reference 1 uses those devices as the field interface for timely worker warnings.
________________________________________
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
26. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) the plurality of wayside units is configured to, when providing the worker protection related functions, generate one or more alerts (L11) relating to the train, and wherein (L12) the plurality of wayside units is configured to provide the one or more alerts to one or more workers operating on or near the track.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 1's modules 613-617 issue threshold-based train alerts while network 601 is active. (L11) Reference 1's alerts identify the approach of train 102 to work zone 601. (L12) Reference 1 sends audible, visual, and haptic alerts to workers 104-106 near track 101.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to generate and provide train alerts to workers when the UWB ranging information shows an approaching train because doing so is the intended safety use of the combined measurement and worker-network systems.
________________________________________
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
27. The system of claim 26, wherein (L13) the plurality of wayside units is configured to communicate at least one alert (L14) to at least one personal device used or carried by at least one worker within the work zone network.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 26 apply to the inherited limitations. (L13) Reference 1 sends the train alert through its module network to personal devices 115-117. (L14) Reference 1's devices 115-117 are worn by workers 104-106 in network 601.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to communicate the train alert to a worker's personal device because Reference 1 teaches that device as a reliable portable alert endpoint for workers dispersed through the work zone.
________________________________________
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
28. The system of claim 26, wherein (L13) the plurality of wayside units is configured to trigger generating at least one alert (L14) in at least one personal device used or carried by at least one worker within the work zone network.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 26 apply to the inherited limitations. (L13) Reference 1's network message triggers audible, visual, and haptic output in devices 115-117. (L14) Reference 1's worker devices 607-612 operate within network 601.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have the received network alert trigger the worker device's local audible, visual, or haptic output because that predictable response makes the transmitted warning perceptible.
________________________________________
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
29. The system of claim 26, wherein (L13) the plurality of wayside units is configured to generate the one or more alerts based one or more preset conditions.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 26 apply to the inherited limitations. (L13) Reference 1's modules 613-617 generate an alert when train arrival meets a preset threshold.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to generate the alert when a preset estimated-arrival or distance threshold is met because a threshold converts the continuously measured train data into a timely and repeatable warning decision.
________________________________________
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
30. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) at least one wayside unit is configured to communicate with a remote system in a back office (L11) while providing the worker protection related functions.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 2 connects wayside stations 1 to remote central station 3; Reference 1 also provides cellular backhaul. (L11) The combined remote link carries ranging and control data while Reference 1's protection network operates.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect the wayside network to Reference 2's remote central station because central monitoring and control allow train and work-zone information to be coordinated beyond the local site.
________________________________________
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
31. The system of claim 30, wherein (L12) at least one wayside unit is configured to communicate to the remote system (L13) one or more of: ranging information, (L14) data obtained based on the ranging information, and (L15) data relating to the worker protection related functions.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17 and 30 apply to the inherited limitations. (L12) Reference 2's stations 1 send field information through link 5 to remote station 3. (L13) Reference 2 sends UWB flight-time and distance data to station 3. (L14) Reference 2 sends derived train position and speed to station 3. (L15) The combination sends Reference 1's train-alert and work-zone data to the back office (inferential).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to send ranging information and data derived from it to the remote central station because Reference 2 centralizes that field data for real-time supervision and railway control.
________________________________________
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
32. The system of claim 31, wherein (L16) at least one wayside unit is configured to receive from the remote system, (L17) information relating to configuring and/or controlling operations of the plurality of wayside units (L18) while providing the worker protection related functions.
Analysis
The analyses of claims 17, 30, and 31 apply to the inherited limitations. (L16) Reference 2 sends control instructions through stations 1; Reference 1 sends configuration data by cellular backhaul. (L17) Those remote instructions configure or control the participating modules. (L18) The remote link remains available while Reference 1 operates in Active Mode.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to return configuration or operating-control information from the remote system to the wayside units because the same bidirectional link permits centralized thresholds, operating parameters, and safety commands to be applied consistently across the field network.
________________________________________
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
33. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) the plurality of wayside units is configured to initiate providing the worker protection related functions (L11) in response to detecting, by at least one of the plurality of wayside units, (L12) at least one personal device used or carried by at least one worker.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 1 enters Active Mode after device connection and synchronization, then provides train warnings. (L11) Reference 1's module detects the worker-device connection packet before Active Mode. (L12) The detected device is worker-carried personal alert equipment.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to initiate the protection functions when a wayside module detects and connects with a worker device because Reference 1's connection and synchronization sequence confirms that workers are present and identifies the modules that must protect them before active operation begins.
________________________________________
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 4.
Claim Text
34. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) the plurality of wayside units is configured to initiate providing the worker protection related functions (L11) in response to commands received from a remote system.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 1 initiates work-zone protection; Reference 4 adds remote initiation through wayside unit 126. (L11) Reference 4's dispatcher processor 114 sends an alarm from control center 110 to wayside unit 126 (inferential for the full protection set).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to additionally permit Reference 4's remote dispatcher command to initiate the worker-protection functions because both systems protect rail work zones, and remote initiation gives the dispatcher a known redundant means to start protection when centralized authority or hazard data requires action independently of the local worker-device trigger.
________________________________________
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
35. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) the at least one wayside unit is configured to obtain at least a portion of the ranging information (L11) based on communications of the UWB signals (L12) with at least one train-mounted unit deployed on the train.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 2's station 1 and processor 8 obtain train distance and position. (L11) Reference 2 derives those values from 1-to-10-GHz UWB flight time. (L12) Reference 2 exchanges the UWB signals with train-mounted transceiver 6 on rail vehicle 4.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to derive the ranging information from Reference 2's UWB exchange with the train-mounted transceiver because that disclosed signal path provides the precise train measurement used to time the combined system's worker warnings.
________________________________________
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
36. The system of claim 17, wherein (L10) the at least one activation condition comprises detecting or communicating with at least one personal device (L11) used or carried by at least one worker within the work zone network.
Analysis
The analysis of claim 17 applies to the inherited limitations. (L10) Reference 1 exchanges a connection packet and acknowledgment with the worker device before Active Mode. (L11) Reference 1's devices 607-612 are carried by workers within network 601.
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 detection of or communication with the worker personal device as the activation condition because Reference 1's connection handshake identifies worker presence and the nearest modules, allowing the work-zone network to activate only the nodes needed for the present crew.
________________________________________
Nonstatutory 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. See MPEP Sections 706.07(e) and 714.13.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome this nonstatutory double patenting rejection provided the conflicting patents are shown to be commonly owned with this application.
Claims 17-33, 35, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17, as applicable, of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,436 in view of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,780,481.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,436 in view of claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,780,481.
Patentable-Distinction Analysis
The issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,436 recite the UWB wayside units, train ranging, worker-protection functions, personal-device communication, alerts, back-office control, and activation features repeated in claims 17-36. Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,780,481 further recites worker-device-triggered work-zone network formation, and claim 10 recites the remote-command formation applied in claim 34. The presently examined claims combine those already patented features without a patentable distinction.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Canceled Claims: 1-16.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103: 17-36.
Rejected Claims - Nonstatutory Double Patenting: 17-36.
Objected-to Claims: 29.
Allowed Claims: None.
________________________________________
Conclusion
US20170015336A1 was not used because its portable rail-worker warning architecture is less direct than Reference 1's automatically redefined trackside-module work zone. US20190126961A1 was not used because its back-office and wayside communications add no material teaching beyond the selected rail-specific references.
References 1 and 2 collectively teach the dynamic worker-triggered work-zone network and the rail-specific UWB train-ranging architecture. References 3 and 4 are applied only to the additional UWB worker-device and remote-command limitations of claims 19 and 34. Claims 17-36 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and are also rejected for nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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