DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's application filed November 27, 2024. Claims 10-31 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Continuation Application
4. This application is a continuation application of U.S. Application 16/555,650, filed 08/29/2019, now U.S. Patent # 10,864,930. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
5. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,864,930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclosed the same subject matter.
Claims 11-20 depend from claim 10 and therefore include the same limitation as claim 10 so they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 21 contain similar limitations as claim 10 so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 22-31 depend from claim 21, and therefore include the same limitations as claim 21, so they are rejected for the same reasons.
18/961,958 (Current Application)
Patent No 10,864,930
Claim 10: A computer-implemented method for identifying defects of a train via acoustic monitoring, the train traveling on first and second rails of a track, the method comprising the steps of:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for identifying a defect of a passing train via acoustic monitoring, the passing train comprising wheels and bearings, the train traveling on first and second rails of a track, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a plurality of signals from a plurality of microphone assemblies at a data acquisition module of a field sensor system when the train passes the plurality of microphones, the plurality of microphones in communication with the data acquisition module, the plurality of microphone assemblies positioned proximate the first and second rails of the track, the plurality of microphone assemblies comprising a first, second, third, and fourth microphone assemblies, the first microphone assembly positioned on outward of the first rail, the second microphone assembly positioned outward of the second rail, and the third and fourth microphone assemblies positioned inward of the first and second rails, the plurality of signals comprising a first signal received by the first microphone assembly, a second signal received by the second microphone assembly, a third signal received by the third microphone assembly, and a fourth signal receive by the fourth microphone assembly, the first, second, third, and fourth microphone assemblies generally positioned in a first plane extending vertically and transverse to the first and second rails, the plurality of signals emanating from a noise source of a defect associated with the train as the train passes the plurality of microphone assemblies;
receiving data from the passing train within a zone of observance using a plurality of microphone assemblies of an acoustic monitoring system that are positioned around a section of the track, the plurality of microphone assemblies in communication with at least one data acquisition module of the acoustic monitoring system;
identifying a location of the noise source within the first plane;
processing the data to determine pressure levels received by each of the plurality of microphone assemblies;
identifying an intensity of the noise source at the location within the first plane;
using the pressure levels received by each of the plurality of microphone assemblies, computing a theoretical pressure level for each of the plurality of microphone assemblies at a plurality of points within a three-dimensional coordinate space representing at least part of the zone of observance, the three-dimensional coordinate space including coordinate locations for each of the plurality of microphone assemblies, wherein, for each of the plurality of points, the theoretical pressure level is calculated assuming its position within the three-dimensional coordinate space is an origin point of the pressure levels received by each of the plurality of microphone assemblies;
and determining a defect-type based on the location and the intensity of the noise source.
determining one or more locations within the three-dimensional coordinate space where the theoretical pressure levels accurately represent the origin points of the pressure levels received by each of the plurality of microphone assemblies;
isolating acoustic signatures of a noise source in the one or more locations; and determining a type of defect based on the acoustic signatures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claim 21-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
8. Claim 21 requires a non-transitory computer readable store medium, which stores a program. The specification does not set forth what constitutes a non-transitory computer readable store medium, and therefore, in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media and in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, said medium could be directed towards a transitory propagating signal per se and considered to be non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug 24, 2009, p. 2. Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. O'Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in §101. Please refer to MPEP 2111.01 and the USPTO’s “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” memorandum dated January 26, 2010.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665