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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/344,862 filed 09/30/2025. Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braband (DE 10-2016211284), citations refer to provided English translation.
Consider claim 1, Braband clearly teaches a method for monitoring a track section for obstacles by using at least one first imaging sensor and at least one second imaging sensor for detecting the track section during monitoring, (Fig. 1) the method comprising the following steps:
a) aligning the at least one first imaging sensor and the at least one second imaging sensor with the track section, causing each location of the track section to be present in one first image each, of the at least one first imaging sensor and one second image each, of the at least one second sensor; (Fig. 1: First and second image sensor devices 22, 32 are aligned with danger area 16 of the train tracks 3, 4, pg. 4 paragraphs 10-13.)
b) analyzing the first images and second images in a computer-aided manner for obstacles in the track section; (Fig. 1: Evaluation device 40 analyses sensor signals S24, S34 to determine if objects 17, 18 are detected, pg. 5 paragraphs 4-7.)
c) always generating a signal indicating a presence of an obstacle when the analysis has identified an obstacle in at least one of the first images as well as in at least one of the second images; (Fig. 1: Evaluation device 40 outputs control signal AS1 and warning signal AS2 if object 17 is detected in evaluation area 44 by both images sensors 22, 32, pg. 5 paragraphs 7, 13.)
d) only generating a signal indicating a presence of an obstacle when the analysis has identified the obstacle only in the at least one of the first images or only in the at least one of the second images, when the analysis has identified the identified obstacle as an obstacle of a specified critical category, (Fig. 1: If one of the image sensors detects dangerous object 17 evaluation device 40 outputs control signal AS1 and warning signal AS2, pg. 4 paragraph 6, pg. 5 paragraph 7.) and not generating the signal when the analysis has identified the identified obstacle as an obstacle of a specified non-critical category; (Fig. 1: If one of the image sensors detects non-dangerous object 18 evaluation device 40 does not output control signal AS1 and warning signal AS2, pg. 4 paragraph 6, pg. 5 paragraph 7.) and
e) always generating a first signal indicating a fault when the analysis has identified the obstacle only in the at least one of the first images or only in the at least one of the second images. (Fig. 1: Evaluation device 40 outputs fault signal AS3 if one of the image sensors 22, 32 does not detect object 17, pg. 5 paragraph 7, pg. 6 paragraph 1.)
Consider claim 7, Braband clearly teaches a railroad system with a track section, the railroad system comprising: a multiplicity of imaging sensors installed in the railroad system for monitoring the track section; (Fig. 1: Image sensors 22, 32, pg. 4 paragraph 12) and a computing environment (pg. 3 paragraph 8) configured to carry out the method according to claim 1. (See claim 1)
Consider claim 8, Braband clearly teaches a non-transitory computer program product, containing program commands which can be executed by a computing environment for executing at least the steps b), c), d) and e) of the method (pg. 3 paragraph 8) according to claim 1. (See claim 1)
Consider claim 9, Braband clearly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, containing data stored by the storage medium as datasets, causing the datasets to render the computer program product (pg. 3 paragraph 8) according to claim 7 executable. (See claim 7)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braband (DE 10-2016211284) in view of Mian (US 2022/0410951).
Consider claim 2, Braband clearly teaches in step c), also generating a signal indicating a presence of an obstacle when the analysis has identified the obstacle only in the at least one of the first images or only in the at least one of the second images. (Fig. 1: Evaluation device 40 outputs control signal AS1 and warning signal AS2 if object 17 is detected in evaluation area 44 by either of images sensors 22, 32, pg. 5 paragraph 7.)
However, Braband does not explicitly teach generating a signal indicating a presence of an obstacle when the analysis has identified the identified obstacle neither as an obstacle of a specified critical category nor as an obstacle of a specified non-critical category.
In an analogous art, Mian, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches generating a signal indicating a presence of an obstacle when the analysis has identified the identified obstacle neither as an obstacle of a specified critical category nor as an obstacle of a specified non-critical category. (Fig. 7: An alert is generated if the object is in the undetermined category, [0077]-[0081].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Braband by generating a signal indicating a presence of an obstacle when the analysis has identified the identified obstacle neither as an obstacle of a specified critical category nor as an obstacle of a specified non-critical category, as taught by Mian, for the benefit of ensuring that the undetermined object is not a dangerous object.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braband (DE 10-2016211284) in view of Mian et al. (US 2014/0333771), herein Mian ‘771.
Consider claim 3, Braband clearly teaches the second imaging sensors.
However, Braband does not explicitly teach placing each of the second imaging sensors belonging to a second group of second imaging sensors at a distance from each other on the track section, and causing the generated images of the second group in a border region to respectively adjoin adjacent images.
In an analogous art, Mian ‘771, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches placing each of the second imaging sensors belonging to a second group of second imaging sensors at a distance from each other on the track section, and causing the generated images of the second group in a border region to respectively adjoin adjacent images. (Fig. 1: The fields-of-view of a plurality of cameras are combined to fully cover tracks 14, [0032].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Braband by placing each of the second imaging sensors belonging to a second group of second imaging sensors at a distance from each other on the track section, and causing the generated images of the second group in a border region to respectively adjoin adjacent images, as taught by Mian ‘771, for the benefit of monitoring a larger area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights