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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to Application 19/340,058 filed on 09/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar" in line 4. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hunting monitor.” It is unclear whether the claimed “the hunting monitor” refers to the recited railcar monitoring system, the recite sensor or a combination of the processor and memory, or a separate unrecited component. Therefore, the structural relationship between the mounting bracket and the element being attached cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, rendering the scope of claim 1 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner notes claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
Step 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
Step 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8. A computer-implemented method for monitoring a railcar, comprising:
detecting, using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor [additional element/data gathering], a lateral movement of the railcar [Mental Process/Step],
wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar [additional element];
determining, based on the detected lateral movement, a hunting event for the railcar [Mental Process/Step]; and
generating an indication of the hunting event [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results)].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 8 recites a method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of detecting, a lateral movement of the railcar and determining, based on the detected lateral movement, a hunting event for the railcar. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor” That is, other than reciting “a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor” That is, other than reciting “a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor”, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of sensor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of lateral centerline of the railcar. In particular, the “a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor” limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Twp, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that “The remote monitoring device 200 can also include one or more communication interfaces 220 capable of sending and receiving data and/or a variety of sensors 240 capable of measuring and obtaining a variety of data” (See ¶57 of applicant’s specification), and further does not provide any indication that the sensors are anything other than conventional computer element(s) (See ¶57 of applicant’s specification). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the claim is ineligible.-
The independent system claim 1 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 8 outlined above.
The independent medium claim 15 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 8 outlined above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19 and 21 of copending Application No. 17/566,280 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because,
Instant claims 1, 8 and 15 recite corresponding system, method and non-transitory machine readable medium subject matter for detecting lateral movement of a railcar, determining a hunting event based on the detected lateral movement, and generating an indication of the hunting event. Reference claims 1, 11 and 21 respectively recite corresponding method, device and machine readable medium subject matter including a railcar mounted monitoring device, an accelerometer, one or more processors or a controller, and memory storing executable instructions. The reference claims obtain acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar, determine from the acceleration data than an axle of the railcar is in a hunting condition, and provide an indication of the hunting condition. Thus, the instant processor, sensor, memory, lateral movement detection, hunting event determination, and indication generation limitations correspond to the processor, accelerometer, memory, lateral acceleration detection, hunting condition determination and indication limitations of the reference claims.
Reference claims 8 and 15 further recite detecting lateral acceleration of the railcar body above a truck and mounting the monitoring device, via a plate comprising a plurality of studs, at a lateral centerline of the railcar and above the truck. The reference plate constitutes the claimed mounting bracket because it mounts the monitoring device to the railcar. To the extent the instant claims more specifically require mounting at deck height, selecting a deck height position at the claimed lateral centerline would have been an obvious and predictable selection of a specific mounting position for the same railcar monitoring device, performing the same mounting and lateral movement sensing functions. Accordingly, instant claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patentably distinct from reference claims 1, 8, 11, 18 and 21.
Instant claims 2, 9 and 16 require an accelerometer configured to measure lateral acceleration of the railcar. Reference claims 1, 11 and 21 recite an accelerometer that obtains acceleration data indicating lateral acceleration of the railcar. Accordingly, instant claims 2, 9 and 16 are not patentably distinct from reference claims 1, 11 and 21.
Instant claims 3, 10 and 17 require transmitting data indicating the hunting event to a remote monitoring server system. Reference claims 9, 19 and 21 recite transmitting or providing an indication of the railcar hunting condition to a remotely located device, including transmission through a wireless network. Accordingly, instant claims 3, 10 and 17 are not patentably distinct from reference claims 9, 19 and 21.
Instant claims 4, 11 and 18 require a mounting bracket comprising a palte with two studs attached near deck height at the lateral centerline. Reference claim 18 recites mounting the monitoring device via a plate comprising a plurality of studs at the lateral centerline of the railcar. The reference plate corresponds to the claimed mounting bracket plate, and the recited plurality of studs encompasses two studs. Selecting deck height as the specific mounting position at the claimed lateral centerline would have been obvious and predictable mounting location selection for the same monitoring device. Accordingly, instant claims 4, 11 and 18 are not patentably distinct from reference claim 18.
Instant claims 5, 12 and 19 require generating an alert when the lateral movement exceeds a predetermined threshold. Reference claims 1, 11 and 21 determine that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition when a calculated value based on the lateral acceleration readings satisfies a predetermined standard deviation threshold and provide an indication of the resulting hunting condition. Accordingly, instant claims 5, 12 and 19 are not patentably distinct from reference claims 1, 11 and 21.
Instant claims 6 and 13 require analyzing sensor data to identify oscillatory lateral movement indicative of hunting. Reference claims 1, 11 and 21 analyze successive lateral acceleration readings, calculate running standard deviations over a time window, and determine from the calculated values that the railcar axle is in a hunting condition. Accordingly, instant claims 6 and 13 are not patentably distinct from reference claims 1, 11 and 21.
The differences between claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 and reference claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19 and 21 amount to predictable variations in terminology, mounting position, fastening configuration, remote device implementation, threshold based indication and characterization of the detected lateral movement. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are not patentably distinct from the claims of copending application 17/566,280.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767A1, in view of Hoshal et al., US 20060049926A1 and in view of Al-Nazer, et al., Development of an Ultra-Portable Ride Quality Meter. FRA Research Results RR 12-19, December 2012, hereinafter referred to as LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, LeFebvre discloses a railcar monitoring system comprising:
a processor (Processor- See at least ¶28);
sensor (one or more sensors, including, but not limited to, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or temperature sensor – See at least ¶28);
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the railcar monitoring system to (This can include, but is not limited to, analog and digital circuitry, CPUs, processors, circuit boards, memory, firmware, controllers, and other electrical items, as required to operate the accelerometers and temperature sensors and to process the information – See at least ¶41):
detect, using the sensor, a lateral movement of the railcar (One possible implementation of the analysis system of FIG. 12 is shown in FIG. 13. Here, accelerometer passes data on to three sensor sections… The second section selects data from the lateral direction across the railcar and uses Lateral Section to extract lateral oscillation data. Lateral oscillations are detected in Vehicle Dynamics Detector when the RMS value of the oscillations exceeds a lateral oscillation threshold – See at least ¶71-73);
determine, based on the detected lateral movement, a hunting event for the railcar (By analyzing lateral oscillation data, comparing the phase relationship of oscillations detected at different ends of the railcar, and determining whether a lateral hunting event has occurred – See at least ¶69-70 and 73); and
generate an indication of the hunting event (When CMU (Communication management unit) receives a lateral hunting event from one of the WSNs (Wireless sensor nodes) on one end of the railcar (e.g., the front end), a timer is started and, if another event is received from another WSN on the other end of the same railcar (e.g., the back end) within a predetermined period of time then the events are compared for their phase relationship. If the data indicates an out of phase oscillation, then a “body yaw” event is generated. However, if the data indicates an in phase oscillation a “body roll” event is generated. In either case, a lateral hunting message is reported by CMU – See at least ¶69-70).
LeFebvre fails to disclose a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar.
However, Hoshal teaches a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar (Hunting detector (i.e. hunting monitor) may be provided with a power supply and placed within an enclosure. Some means for securing hunting detector to a railcar is also provided. Depending upon the placement of the hunting detector, the hunting detector could detect motion in different directions – See at least ¶23. The circuits shown in FIG. 4 can be powered by a lithium battery. They can also be readily enclosed in a small housing. When equipped with a suitable fastening means (i.e. mounting bracket), the detector can be placed on a railcar with little difficulty -See at least ¶36. FIG. 5 shows the self-contained hunting detector. Enclosure contains the control, the accelerometer and the other circuitry for the hunting detector. Additionally, hunting detector would have a means for attaching the hunting detector to a railroad car – See at least ¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LeFebvre and include the feature of a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar, as taught by Hoshal, to analyze operational conditions of railcars in order to detect anomalous operating conditions.
The combination of LeFebvre and Hoshal fail to disclose a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar.
However, Al-Nazer teaches a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar (Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the accelerometers used for data collection. Two accelerometers were used, but it is important to note that one accelerometer would have sufficed. Two accelerometers were used simply for purposes of redundancy. The accelerometers were placed almost directly above the front truck and as close to the centerline of the car body as possible – See at least Page 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre and Hoshal and include the feature of a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar, as taught by Al-Nazer, to provide a securely mounted hunting monitor positioned to obtain representative railcar motion measurements.
Regarding claim 2, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to measure lateral acceleration of the railcar (A railcar body wireless sensor node comprising an accelerometer and selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction across the railcar to extract lateral oscillation data and detect lateral hunting – See at least ¶34 and 71-73).
Regarding claim 3, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the railcar monitoring system to transmit data indicating the hunting event to a remote monitoring server system (Transmitting event and alert information from the railcar sensor nodes through a communication management unit and powered wireless gateway to an off-train monitoring or remote railroad operations center – See at least ¶29-30 and 50).
Regarding claim 5, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the railcar monitoring system to generate an alert when the lateral movement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction, extracting lateral oscillation data, and detecting lateral oscillation when the RMS value of the lateral oscillation exceeds a predetermined lateral oscillation threshold. Transmitting messages and generating alerts based on detected acceleration events – See at least ¶52-53 and 71-73).
Regarding claim 6, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the railcar monitoring system to analyze sensor data to identify oscillatory lateral movement indicative of hunting (Selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction across the railcar, extracting lateral oscillation data, determining when RMS value of the oscillation exceeds a lateral oscillation threshold, comparing the phase relationship of the detected oscillations and determining whether a lateral hunting event has occurred – See at least ¶69-73).
Regarding claim 8, LeFebvre discloses a computer-implemented method for monitoring a railcar, comprising:
detecting a lateral movement of the railcar (One possible implementation of the analysis system of FIG. 12 is shown in FIG. 13. Here, accelerometer passes data on to three sensor sections… The second section selects data from the lateral direction across the railcar and uses Lateral Section to extract lateral oscillation data. Lateral oscillations are detected in Vehicle Dynamics Detector when the RMS value of the oscillations exceeds a lateral oscillation threshold – See at least ¶71-73),
determining, based on the detected lateral movement, a hunting event for the railcar (By analyzing lateral oscillation data, comparing the phase relationship of oscillations detected at different ends of the railcar, and determining whether a lateral hunting event has occurred – See at least ¶69-70 and 73); and
generating an indication of the hunting event (When CMU (Communication management unit) receives a lateral hunting event from one of the WSNs (Wireless sensor nodes) on one end of the railcar (e.g., the front end), a timer is started and, if another event is received from another WSN on the other end of the same railcar (e.g., the back end) within a predetermined period of time then the events are compared for their phase relationship. If the data indicates an out of phase oscillation, then a “body yaw” event is generated. However, if the data indicates an in phase oscillation a “body roll” event is generated. In either case, a lateral hunting message is reported by CMU – See at least ¶69-70).
LeFebvre fails to disclose using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar;
However, Hoshal teaches using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar (Hunting detector (i.e. hunting monitor) may be provided with a power supply and placed within an enclosure. Some means for securing hunting detector to a railcar is also provided. Depending upon the placement of the hunting detector, the hunting detector could detect motion in different directions – See at least ¶23. The circuits shown in FIG. 4 can be powered by a lithium battery. They can also be readily enclosed in a small housing. When equipped with a suitable fastening means (i.e. mounting bracket), the detector can be placed on a railcar with little difficulty -See at least ¶36. FIG. 5 shows the self-contained hunting detector. Enclosure contains the control, the accelerometer and the other circuitry for the hunting detector. Additionally, hunting detector would have a means for attaching the hunting detector to a railroad car – See at least ¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LeFebvre and include the feature of using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar, as taught by Hoshal, to analyze operational conditions of railcars in order to detect anomalous operating conditions.
The combination of LeFebvre and Hoshal fail to disclose wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar.
However, Al-Nazer teaches wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar (Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the accelerometers used for data collection. Two accelerometers were used, but it is important to note that one accelerometer would have sufficed. Two accelerometers were used simply for purposes of redundancy. The accelerometers were placed almost directly above the front truck and as close to the centerline of the car body as possible – See at least Page 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre and Hoshal and include the feature of a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar, as taught by Al-Nazer, to provide a securely mounted hunting monitor positioned to obtain representative railcar motion measurements.
Regarding claim 9, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to measure lateral acceleration of the railcar (A railcar body wireless sensor node comprising an accelerometer and selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction across the railcar to extract lateral oscillation data and detect lateral hunting – See at least ¶34 and 71-73).
Regarding claim 10, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses transmitting data indicating the hunting event to a remote monitoring server system (Transmitting event and alert information from the railcar sensor nodes through a communication management unit and powered wireless gateway to an off-train monitoring or remote railroad operations center – See at least ¶29-30 and 50).
Regarding claim 12, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses generating an alert when the lateral movement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction, extracting lateral oscillation data, and detecting lateral oscillation when the RMS value of the lateral oscillation exceeds a predetermined lateral oscillation threshold. Transmitting messages and generating alerts based on detected acceleration events – See at least ¶52-53 and 71-73).
Regarding claim 13, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses analyzing sensor data to identify oscillatory lateral movement indicative of hunting (Selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction across the railcar, extracting lateral oscillation data, determining when RMS value of the oscillation exceeds a lateral oscillation threshold, comparing the phase relationship of the detected oscillations and determining whether a lateral hunting event has occurred – See at least ¶69-73).
Regarding claim 15, LeFebvre discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising:
detecting a lateral movement of the railcar (One possible implementation of the analysis system of FIG. 12 is shown in FIG. 13. Here, accelerometer passes data on to three sensor sections… The second section selects data from the lateral direction across the railcar and uses Lateral Section to extract lateral oscillation data. Lateral oscillations are detected in Vehicle Dynamics Detector when the RMS value of the oscillations exceeds a lateral oscillation threshold – See at least ¶71-73),
determining, based on the detected lateral movement, a hunting event for the railcar (By analyzing lateral oscillation data, comparing the phase relationship of oscillations detected at different ends of the railcar, and determining whether a lateral hunting event has occurred – See at least ¶69-70 and 73); and
generating an indication of the hunting event (When CMU (Communication management unit) receives a lateral hunting event from one of the WSNs (Wireless sensor nodes) on one end of the railcar (e.g., the front end), a timer is started and, if another event is received from another WSN on the other end of the same railcar (e.g., the back end) within a predetermined period of time then the events are compared for their phase relationship. If the data indicates an out of phase oscillation, then a “body yaw” event is generated. However, if the data indicates an in phase oscillation a “body roll” event is generated. In either case, a lateral hunting message is reported by CMU – See at least ¶69-70).
LeFebvre fails to disclose using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar;
However, Hoshal teaches using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar (Hunting detector (i.e. hunting monitor) may be provided with a power supply and placed within an enclosure. Some means for securing hunting detector to a railcar is also provided. Depending upon the placement of the hunting detector, the hunting detector could detect motion in different directions – See at least ¶23. The circuits shown in FIG. 4 can be powered by a lithium battery. They can also be readily enclosed in a small housing. When equipped with a suitable fastening means (i.e. mounting bracket), the detector can be placed on a railcar with little difficulty -See at least ¶36. FIG. 5 shows the self-contained hunting detector. Enclosure contains the control, the accelerometer and the other circuitry for the hunting detector. Additionally, hunting detector would have a means for attaching the hunting detector to a railroad car – See at least ¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LeFebvre and include the feature of using a hunting monitor comprising at least one sensor and a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar, as taught by Hoshal, to analyze operational conditions of railcars in order to detect anomalous operating conditions.
The combination of LeFebvre and Hoshal fail to disclose wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar.
However, Al-Nazer teaches wherein a mounting bracket attaches the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar (Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the accelerometers used for data collection. Two accelerometers were used, but it is important to note that one accelerometer would have sufficed. Two accelerometers were used simply for purposes of redundancy. The accelerometers were placed almost directly above the front truck and as close to the centerline of the car body as possible – See at least Page 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre and Hoshal and include the feature of a mounting bracket configured to attach the hunting monitor at a deck height of a lateral centerline of the railcar, as taught by Al-Nazar, to provide a securely mounted hunting monitor positioned to obtain representative railcar motion measurements.
Regarding claim 16, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to measure lateral acceleration of the railcar (A railcar body wireless sensor node comprising an accelerometer and selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction across the railcar to extract lateral oscillation data and detect lateral hunting – See at least ¶34 and 71-73).
Regarding claim 17, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses transmitting data indicating the hunting event to a remote monitoring server system (Transmitting event and alert information from the railcar sensor nodes through a communication management unit and powered wireless gateway to an off-train monitoring or remote railroad operations center – See at least ¶29-30 and 50).
Regarding claim 19, LeFebvre, as modified, discloses generating an alert when the lateral movement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Selecting acceleration data from the lateral direction, extracting lateral oscillation data, and detecting lateral oscillation when the RMS value of the lateral oscillation exceeds a predetermined lateral oscillation threshold. Transmitting messages and generating alerts based on detected acceleration events – See at least ¶52-53 and 71-73).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767A1, in view of Hoshal et al., US 20060049926A1 and in view of Al-Nazer, et al., Development of an Ultra-Portable Ride Quality Meter. FRA Research Results RR 12-19, December 2012, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above and further in view of Harrison et al., US 20100258088A1, hereinafter referred to as LeFebvre, Hoshal, Al-Nazer and Harrison, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer fail to disclose wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline.
However, Harrison teaches wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline (The controller is then attached to the mounting plate. The illustrated mounting plate is a planar rectangular plate with four threaded studs (best shown in FIGS. 4 and 5). The mounting plate can be, for example, a 0.25 inch thick steel plate. The threaded studs extend through mounting lugs of the controller and cooperate with threaded nuts for removably attaching the controller to the mounting plate fixed to the equipment rack – See at least ¶48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer and include the feature of wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline, as taught by Harrison, for detecting defects in the running gear of railcars.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer fail to disclose wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline.
However, Harrison teaches wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline (The controller is then attached to the mounting plate. The illustrated mounting plate is a planar rectangular plate with four threaded studs (best shown in FIGS. 4 and 5). The mounting plate can be, for example, a 0.25 inch thick steel plate. The threaded studs extend through mounting lugs of the controller and cooperate with threaded nuts for removably attaching the controller to the mounting plate fixed to the equipment rack – See at least ¶48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer and include the feature of wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline, as taught by Harrison, for detecting defects in the running gear of railcars.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer fail to disclose wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline.
However, Harrison teaches wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline (The controller is then attached to the mounting plate. The illustrated mounting plate is a planar rectangular plate with four threaded studs (best shown in FIGS. 4 and 5). The mounting plate can be, for example, a 0.25 inch thick steel plate. The threaded studs extend through mounting lugs of the controller and cooperate with threaded nuts for removably attaching the controller to the mounting plate fixed to the equipment rack – See at least ¶48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer and include the feature of wherein the mounting bracket comprises a plate with two studs attached near the deck height at the lateral centerline, as taught by Harrison, for detecting defects in the running gear of railcars.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFebvre et al., US 20160325767A1, in view of Hoshal et al., US 20060049926A1, in view of Al-Nazer, et al., Development of an Ultra-Portable Ride Quality Meter. FRA Research Results RR 12-19, December 2012, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Hal B. Haygood, US 20090001226A1, hereinafter referred to as LeFebvre, Hoshal, Al-Nazer and Haygood, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, LeFebvre discloses wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode (Each WSN also includes circuitry for wireless communications and a long-term power source (e.g. a battery, solar cell, energy harvester, or internal power-generating capability), preferably a military grade lithium-thionyl chloride battery. The circuitry also provides power conditioning and management functions and may include a feature to conserve battery life which keeps WSN in a standby state and periodically wakes WSN to deliver readings from the sensors -See at least ¶43. The railcar-based mesh network is a critical component in the processing of events and alerts on the railcar. CMU and WSNs work together to collect and analyze the data collected from sensors in the WSNs. CMU controls the railcar-based mesh network on railcars and is able to configure one or a more WSNs in a local mesh network to transmit, listen, or sleep at precise times, or to change the parameters under which WSNs operate and detect events – See at least ¶48).
The combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer fail to disclose wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event.
However, Haygood teaches wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event (The device may continuously monitor the acoustic and/or motion/vibration signature of the running gear. However, such continuous monitoring may generate extraneous data, utilizing limited memory and power. Thus, for some embodiments, the device may be programmed to “wake up” periodically to measure the monitored signature and then revert back to a sleep mode. For other embodiments, the device may be programmed to turn on based on a triggering event or condition, such as when the railcar reaches a certain speed. Triggering events may include, but are not limited to, speed thresholds, vibration thresholds, location points, or any other threshold based upon a sensor or other input to processor. From this point, the device may continuously or periodically monitor the acoustic/motion/vibration signature of the running gear until the condition is no longer met or after a timeout has occurred – See at least ¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer and include the feature of wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event, as taught by Haygood, for acoustically monitoring and detecting defects in the running gear of railcars.
Regarding claim 14, LeFebvre discloses wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode (Each WSN also includes circuitry for wireless communications and a long-term power source (e.g. a battery, solar cell, energy harvester, or internal power-generating capability), preferably a military grade lithium-thionyl chloride battery. The circuitry also provides power conditioning and management functions and may include a feature to conserve battery life which keeps WSN in a standby state and periodically wakes WSN to deliver readings from the sensors -See at least ¶43. The railcar-based mesh network is a critical component in the processing of events and alerts on the railcar. CMU and WSNs work together to collect and analyze the data collected from sensors in the WSNs. CMU controls the railcar-based mesh network on railcars and is able to configure one or a more WSNs in a local mesh network to transmit, listen, or sleep at precise times, or to change the parameters under which WSNs operate and detect events – See at least ¶48).
The combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer fail to disclose wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event.
However, Haygood teaches wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event (The device may continuously monitor the acoustic and/or motion/vibration signature of the running gear. However, such continuous monitoring may generate extraneous data, utilizing limited memory and power. Thus, for some embodiments, the device may be programmed to “wake up” periodically to measure the monitored signature and then revert back to a sleep mode. For other embodiments, the device may be programmed to turn on based on a triggering event or condition, such as when the railcar reaches a certain speed. Triggering events may include, but are not limited to, speed thresholds, vibration thresholds, location points, or any other threshold based upon a sensor or other input to processor. From this point, the device may continuously or periodically monitor the acoustic/motion/vibration signature of the running gear until the condition is no longer met or after a timeout has occurred – See at least ¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer and include the feature of wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event, as taught by Haygood, for acoustically monitoring and detecting defects in the running gear of railcars.
Regarding claim 20, LeFebvre discloses wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode (Each WSN also includes circuitry for wireless communications and a long-term power source (e.g. a battery, solar cell, energy harvester, or internal power-generating capability), preferably a military grade lithium-thionyl chloride battery. The circuitry also provides power conditioning and management functions and may include a feature to conserve battery life which keeps WSN in a standby state and periodically wakes WSN to deliver readings from the sensors -See at least ¶43. The railcar-based mesh network is a critical component in the processing of events and alerts on the railcar. CMU and WSNs work together to collect and analyze the data collected from sensors in the WSNs. CMU controls the railcar-based mesh network on railcars and is able to configure one or a more WSNs in a local mesh network to transmit, listen, or sleep at precise times, or to change the parameters under which WSNs operate and detect events – See at least ¶48).
The combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer fail to disclose wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event.
However, Haygood teaches wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event (The device may continuously monitor the acoustic and/or motion/vibration signature of the running gear. However, such continuous monitoring may generate extraneous data, utilizing limited memory and power. Thus, for some embodiments, the device may be programmed to “wake up” periodically to measure the monitored signature and then revert back to a sleep mode. For other embodiments, the device may be programmed to turn on based on a triggering event or condition, such as when the railcar reaches a certain speed. Triggering events may include, but are not limited to, speed thresholds, vibration thresholds, location points, or any other threshold based upon a sensor or other input to processor. From this point, the device may continuously or periodically monitor the acoustic/motion/vibration signature of the running gear until the condition is no longer met or after a timeout has occurred – See at least ¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LeFebvre, Hoshal and Al-Nazer and include the feature of wherein the hunting monitor is configured to operate in a low-power mode and increase data collection frequency upon detection of a hunting event, as taught by Haygood, for acoustically monitoring and detecting defects in the running gear of railcars.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights