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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 line 5 the limitation “and uncontrolled railway crossing beacon” should be changed to –and an uncontrolled railway crossing beacon—for grammatical correctness.
Regarding claim 1 line 5 the “.;” should be corrected to remove the period.
Regarding claim 1 line 16 the limitation “an uncontrolled railway crossing beacon” should be amended to change “an” to –the—because the uncontrolled railway crossing beacon was already introduced in line 5.
Regarding claim 1 lines 18 & 19 the duplicate and should be removed.
Regarding claim 2 lines 2 & 3 the phrase “uncontrolled railway crossing beacons is” should change “is” to –are—for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 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 the claim 1 line 4 limitation “mobile devices” and claim 1 line 6 limitation “low-earth orbit-capable mobile device” it is unclear if these are meant to be the same or different devices.
Regarding the claim 1 line 4 limitation “mobile devices” and claim 1 line 10 limitation “low-earth orbit-capable mobile device” it is unclear if these are meant to be the same or different devices.
Regarding the claim 1 lines 4 & 5 limitation “real-time situational system” and the claim 1 line 13 limitation “real-time situational monitoring system” it is unclear if these are meant to be the same or different systems.
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) 1 & 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam et al. (US 20190212156 A1, herein after referred to as Ghannam) in view of Shubs et al (US 20170101116 A1, herein after referred to as Shubs) and further in view of Hayward (US 10451427 B1).
Ghannam teaches an automated warning system for uncontrolled railway crossings (abstract) comprising: real-time communication low-earth orbit satellite system (FIG. 1: 140; paragraph 32) establishing communications with mobile devices (FIG. 5: 530; paragraph 32), real-time situational system (FIG. 1: 150, 160, & 162; paragraph 27) and uncontrolled railway crossing beacon (FIG. 1: 113; paragraph 27); low-earth orbit-capable mobile device on vehicle configured to provide real-time geolocation and bidirectional communication with low-earth orbit satellite system (FIG. 5: 530; paragraph 32); a real-time situational monitoring system configured to provide bidirectional communication (FIG. 1: depicted with bilateral communication); and managing collision prevention of train and vehicles (paragraphs 23 & 25); but does not explicitly teach an uncontrolled railway crossing beacon configured to provide unidirectional communication to real-time situational monitoring system; and said crossing beacon configured for GNSS reception, and a low-earth orbit-capable mobile device on train configured to provide real-time geolocation and bidirectional communication with low-earth orbit satellite system.
However, Shubs does teach a low-earth orbit-capable mobile device on train configured to provide real-time geolocation and bidirectional communication with low-earth orbit satellite system (FIG. 2: 62). 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 alternatively included the low-earth orbit-capable mobile device of Shubs with the automated warning system of Ghannam in order to provide precise GPS location data to the real-time situational system and to the crew of the train.
Furthermore, Hayward teaches an uncontrolled railway crossing beacon (FIG. 2: 208) configured to provide unidirectional communication to real-time situational monitoring system (FIG. 2: 203f depicted allowing for bidirectional communication which means that it is also capable of unidirectional communication without a change to the structure of the device); and said crossing beacon configured for GNSS reception (column 11, lines 41-54 & column 14, lines 7-24). 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 alternatively included the railway crossing beacon communication configuration of Hayward with the automated warning system of Ghannam in order to communicate the state of the railway crossing beacon to the vehicle without requiring the use of sensors as taught by Ghannam in order to enhance safety in the event of a failure of the beacon or the sensors.
Regarding claim 2 Ghannam as modified above teaches that the uncontrolled railway crossing beacons is configured to assist real-time situational monitoring system establish a virtual perimeter (configured to allow for this).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam et al. (US 20190212156 A1, herein after referred to as Ghannam) in view of Shubs et al (US 20170101116 A1, herein after referred to as Shubs) and further in view of Hayward (US 10451427 B1) and further in view of D’Amico (US 20190077429 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Ghannam as modified above does not teach that the uncontrolled railway crossing beacons is configured with motion detection sensors to detect approaching vehicles. However, D’Amico does teach the use of a motion detection sensor (FIG. 1: 109; paragraph 18). 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 alternatively included the motion detection sensor of D’Amico with the system of Ghannam as modified above in order to detect oncoming vehicles and allow the system to respond to increase safety.
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 rail crossings 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