DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In regard to claim 1, claim 1 is directed only to generic computer devices performing generic actions and not controlling a specific machine or resulting in a specific outcome.
In regard to claim 8, similarly to claim 1, claim 8 is directed to a process of performing generic actions by generic computer devices, not resulting in controlling a specific machine or resulting in a specific outcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davenport et al. (US Pub No 2004/0119587).
In regard to claim 1, Davenport discloses a system for monitoring a grade level crossing (see Paragraphs 0002 and 0017: “active warning devices are installed at railroad-highway grade crossings to warn motorists of an approaching train” and “An embodiment of the present invention provides an apparatus and method for monitoring and controlling activation of a visual warning system, such as a flashing light warning system, at a railroad crossing that may also include crossing gates.”), comprising:
a telemetry unit (generally comprising the elements of system 100, see Figs 1 and 2), the telemetry unit having a processor (micro controller 160) in communication with one or more inputs (photo detector 140 and other sensor(s) 150) and one or more control outputs (comprising at least transceiver 190), wherein the one or more inputs receive signals representative of a status of the grade level crossing (Paragraph 0018: “sensor 140 arranged for sensing flashing light 130, other sensors 150 optionally arranged for sensing additional lights, light alignment, temperature, noise, gate position, or gate acceleration for example”), and the one or more control outputs operate one or more safety features of the grade level crossing (transceiver 190 interfacing with flashing light system 110 with lamp and mast and barrier elements, see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0019: “Power line interface 200 interfaces between transceiver 190 and the power line 210 servicing flashing light system 110.”);
a data collector (data recorder 260, Fig 2) in digital communication with the telemetry unit via a communications channel (via 210, see Fig 2 and Paragraph 0031: “microcontroller 160 is configured with embedded functions for communicating with transceiver 190, thereby enabling communication with data recorder 260”), wherein the data collector receives and stores data records representative of an operation of the grade level crossing (see Paragraph 0031: “Data recorder 260 not only records data received from microcontroller 160 but also stores predefined nominal operating characteristics (such as flash rate for example), threshold values (such as minimum and maximum lamp intensities), and the logical addresses for multiple lamps 130 being serviced by lamp sets 220, 230.”);
a report processing engine (monitoring station 105, Fig 2) in digital communication with the data collector (via wide area network 245), wherein the report processing engine is configured to analyze the data records and generate a report on the operation of the grade level crossing (see Paragraph 0031: “microcontroller 160 sends an abnormal condition signal across power lines 210, via power line interface 200, equipment bungalow 240 and wide area network 245, to a monitoring station 105 for corrective action”; also see Paragraph 0046).
In regard to claim 8, Davenport discloses a method of monitoring one or more grade level crossings (see Paragraphs 0002 and 0017: “active warning devices are installed at railroad-highway grade crossings to warn motorists of an approaching train” and “An embodiment of the present invention provides an apparatus and method for monitoring and controlling activation of a visual warning system, such as a flashing light warning system, at a railroad crossing that may also include crossing gates.”), comprising the steps of:
providing a telemetry unit (generally comprising the elements of system 100, see Figs 1 and 2, the generic step of “providing” the unit being inherently necessary for the existence of the unit to be used in the method), the telemetry unit having a processor (micro controller 160) in communication with one or more inputs (photo detector 140 and other sensor(s) 150) and one or more control outputs (comprising at least transceiver 190), receiving at the one or more inputs signals representative of a status of the grade level crossing (Paragraph 0018: “sensor 140 arranged for sensing flashing light 130, other sensors 150 optionally arranged for sensing additional lights, light alignment, temperature, noise, gate position, or gate acceleration for example”), and the one or more control outputs operating one or more safety features of the grade level crossing (transceiver 190 interfacing with flashing light system 110 with lamp and mast and barrier elements, see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0019: “Power line interface 200 interfaces between transceiver 190 and the power line 210 servicing flashing light system 110.”);
providing a data collector (data recorder 260, Fig 2, the generic step of “providing” the collector being inherently necessary for the existence of the collector to be used in the method) in digital communication with the telemetry unit via a communications channel (via 210, see Fig 2 and Paragraph 0031: “microcontroller 160 is configured with embedded functions for communicating with transceiver 190, thereby enabling communication with data recorder 260”), receiving and storing at the data collector data records representative of an operation of the grade level crossing (see Paragraph 0031: “Data recorder 260 not only records data received from microcontroller 160 but also stores predefined nominal operating characteristics (such as flash rate for example), threshold values (such as minimum and maximum lamp intensities), and the logical addresses for multiple lamps 130 being serviced by lamp sets 220, 230.”);
providing a report processing engine (monitoring station 105, Fig 2, the generic step of “providing” the engine being inherently necessary for the existence of the engine to be used in the method) in digital communication with the data collector (via wide area network 245);
analyzing at the report processing engine the data records representative of an operation of the grade level crossing; generating a report on the operation of the grade level crossing (see Paragraph 0031: “microcontroller 160 sends an abnormal condition signal across power lines 210, via power line interface 200, equipment bungalow 240 and wide area network 245, to a monitoring station 105 for corrective action”; also see Paragraph 0046).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport et al. (US Pub No 2004/0119587) in view of Davenport et al. (US Pub No 2006/0017583), to be referred to as Davenport ‘583 to avoid confusion.
In regard to claims 2 and 9,
Davenport discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
Davenport does not positively disclose wherein the report includes a recent failure alarm.
Examiner notes that Davenport does teach, in general, noting issues with the system via the report processing engine (monitoring station 105), for example, see Paragraphs 0045 and 0046.
Further:
Davenport ‘583 discloses a similar system (an apparatus for monitoring the status of a railroad crossing warning device, see the Title, the Abstract, and Paragraph 0001). Most importantly, Davenport ‘583 teaches that failure alarms should be recorded at remote monitoring centers to allow for action by railroad maintenance (see Paragraph 0056: “If the observed signal falls outside the thresholds defining acceptable performance, an alarm is recorded locally in the crossing equipment's data recorder. The alarm may also be conveyed to a remote monitoring center for subsequent action by railroad maintenance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system and method of Davenport such that the report includes a recent failure alarm to allow for action by railroad maintenance, as taught by Davenport ‘583.
In regard to claims 3 and 10,
Davenport discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
Davenport does not positively disclose wherein the report includes a failure prediction report.
However, such practices, in general, are known in the art.
Davenport ‘583 discloses a similar system (an apparatus for monitoring the status of a railroad crossing warning device, see the Title, the Abstract, and Paragraph 0001). Most importantly, Davenport ‘583 teaches that “performance data may be recorded with future performance being predicted on the basis of the data trend” (Paragraph 0039).
Configuring the system and method of Davenport to simply include failure prediction information in the report, as is taught by Davenport ‘583 done in a similar system, to allow for future failure prediction, is considered to be an obvious application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2141 III), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
In regard to claims 4 and 11,
Davenport discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
Davenport does not positively disclose wherein the report includes an adjacent crossing activation warning.
However, such practices, in general, are known in the art.
Davenport ‘583 discloses a similar system (an apparatus for monitoring the status of a railroad crossing warning device, see the Title, the Abstract, and Paragraph 0001). Most importantly, Davenport ‘583 teaches using a common monitoring station to receive reports from multiple monitoring systems.
See Paragraph 0043: “Information 70 may be received by the system controller 78 regarding a plurality of annunciators 42 at a plurality of crossings within a railroad network.”, and “Data regarding the make, model, location, installation date, service history, etc. of each annunciator 42 throughout the network may be maintained in a database 84 accessible by the system controller 78. The database 84 may also be updated to include performance information 70 from individual annunciators.”
Configuring the system and method of Davenport to have a common monitoring station handle data from additional monitoring systems (i.e., adjected crossing activation warnings included in a common report), as is generally taught by Davenport ‘583 done in a similar system, to allow for a reduced need in additional monitoring stations, is considered to be an obvious application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2141 III), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
In regard to claim 6 and 13,
Davenport discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8,
Davenport does not positively disclose wherein the report includes an unobserved failure report.
Examiner notes that Davenport does teach, in general, noting issues with the system via the report processing engine (monitoring station 105), for example, see Paragraphs 0045 and 0046.
Further:
Davenport ‘583 discloses a similar system (an apparatus for monitoring the status of a railroad crossing warning device, see the Title, the Abstract, and Paragraph 0001). Most importantly, Davenport ‘583 teaches that failure alarms should be recorded at remote monitoring centers to allow for action by railroad maintenance (see Paragraph 0056: “If the observed signal falls outside the thresholds defining acceptable performance, an alarm is recorded locally in the crossing equipment's data recorder. The alarm may also be conveyed to a remote monitoring center for subsequent action by railroad maintenance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system and method of Davenport such that the report includes unobserved failure reports to allow for action by railroad maintenance, as taught by Davenport ‘583 (a failure requiring maintenance to be dispatched is considered to be an “unobserved failure” as very broadly claims as maintenance is not necessarily on-site to witness the failure at the time of occurrence; i.e., the failure is not observed, in person, at the time of failure).
In regard to claims 7 and 14,
Davenport discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
Davenport does not positively disclose wherein the report includes a crossing out of service warning.
However, such practices, in general, are known in the art.
Davenport ‘583 discloses a similar system (an apparatus for monitoring the status of a railroad crossing warning device, see the Title, the Abstract, and Paragraph 0001). Most importantly, Davenport ‘583 teaches in such devices, service history may be recorded (see Paragraph 0043: “service history, etc. of each annunciator 42 throughout the network may be maintained in a database 84 accessible by the system controller 78”).
Configuring the system and method of Davenport to simply report service history (including when the system is not I service), as is generally taught by Davenport ‘583 done in a similar system, to allow for additional system data, is considered to be an obvious application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2141 III), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport et al. (US Pub No 2004/0119587) in view of Baldwin et al. (US Pub No 2013/0062474).
In regard to claims 5 and 12,
Davenport discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 8.
Davenport does not positively disclose wherein the report includes a corroboration of a reported failure.
However, such practices, in general, are known in the art.
Baldwin discloses a similar system (an apparatus for monitoring the status of a railroad crossing warning device, see the Title, the Abstract, and Paragraph 0011). Most importantly, Baldwin teaches utilizing redundant elements to allow for more safe operation (see Paragraphs 0012, 0023, and 0054, see especially in Paragraph 0054: “Sensor devices 130 are paired to assure independent and redundant data collection and evaluation that satisfy closed circuit and fail-safe principles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system and method of Davenport such that independent and redundant elements are used (allowing for corroborating data) to facilitate more safe operation as taught by Baldwin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747