DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claim rejections based on prior art
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/01/2025 with respect to claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim rejection based on 101
Claims 1, 9 and 18 are all directed to a program that’s executed by a controller in a vehicle. The controller can be a generic controller, processor.
Claim rejection based on 103
With respect to claim language ‘examine a route parameter indicative of a health of a route over which a vehicle system travels and a vehicle parameter indicative of a health of the vehicle system” paragraph 0067 of Gage teaches of a travel route itinerary parameter, which is being equated to claim ‘a route parameter’ and a parameter for a corridor region, which is being equated to claim ‘vehicle parameter’. Note, Gage teaching of a ‘travel route itinerary parameter’ for a vehicle equates to an indication of a health of a route over which a vehicle system travels since the claim language doesn’t disclose how this ‘indication’ is expressed. Gage teaching of ‘a parameter for a corridor region’ of a vehicle system equates to an indication of a health of the vehicle system since the claim language doesn’t disclose how this ‘indication’ is expressed.
With respect to claim limitation ‘examination equipment configured to continually monitor the route and the vehicle system responsive to determining that the route or the vehicle system is physically damaged’, Examiner is equating image data analysis system 154 of fig. 12, as discloses in paragraph 0109 of Miller to claim ‘examination equipment’ and control unit of a vehicle, as discloses in paragraph 0117 of Miller to claim ‘vehicle system’; therefore, ‘in responsive’ to an image data showing damage on a route, as discloses in paragraphs 0060 and 0109 of Miller, image data analysis system 154 examine the data content of the image data, as discloses in paragraph 0109 and communicated a warning signal to the control unit of the vehicle, as discloses in paragraph 0117. The image data analysis system 154 examining the content of the image data and communicating a warning signal to the control unit of a vehicle is being equated to claim language ‘examination equipment configured to continually monitor the route and the vehicle system’, see paragraphs 0060, 0109 and 0117, particularly paragraph 0109, which discloses “FIG. 12 is a schematic illustration of the image analysis system 154 according to one embodiment. As described herein, the image analysis system can be used to examine the data content of the image data to automatically identify objects in the image data, damage in the route, or the like. A controller 1400 of the system includes or represents hardware circuits or circuitry that includes and/or is connected with one or more computer processors, such as one or more computer microprocessors. The controller can save image data obtained by the camera unit to one or more memory devices 1402 of the imaging system, generate alarm signals responsive to identifying one or more problems with the route and/or the wayside devices based on the image data that is obtained, or the like. The memory device 1402 includes one or more computer readable media used to at least temporarily store the image data. A suitable memory device can include a computer hard drive, flash or solid state drive, optical disk, or the like” and paragraph 0117, which discloses “In another embodiment, the image analysis system can examine the image data to identify text, signs, or the like, along the route. For example, information printed or displayed on signs, display devices, vehicles, or the like, indicating speed limits, locations, warnings, upcoming obstacles, identities of vehicles, or the like, may be autonomously read by the image analysis system. The image analysis system can identify information by the detection and reading of information on signs. In one aspect, the image analysis processor can detect information (e.g., text, images, or the like) based on intensities of pixels in the image data, based on wireframe model data generated based on the image data, or the like. The image analysis processor can identify the information and store the information in the memory device. The image analysis processor can examine the information, such as by using optical character recognition to identify the letters, numbers, symbols, or the like, that are included in the image data. This information may be used to autonomously and/or remotely control the vehicle, such as by communicating a warning signal to the control unit of a vehicle, which can slow the vehicle in response to reading a sign that indicates a speed limit that is slower than a current actual speed of the vehicle. As another example, this information may be used to identify the vehicle and/or cargo carried by the vehicle by reading the information printed or displayed on the vehicle”.
With respect to claim limitation ‘determine whether one or both of a route or a vehicle system are physically damaged’, this claim language doesn’t disclose how this ‘determination’ takes place. Therefore, see paragraphs 0065 and 0067 of Gage which teach the function/result of a ‘determination’; for example, paragraph 0067 disclose “the memory 306 may store travel route itinerary parameters as conveyed by the handheld mobile device 104 and/or the head unit device 103, parameters for a corridor region defined by itinerary data that includes start point data and destination point data generated by a navigation user interface, a commuter region defined by learned commuting behaviors of a vehicle user, including a commute start point and destination data and corresponding travel time estimation data, a recorded corridor region defined by traveled itinerary data and associated time marker data”. Note, with respect to ‘physical damage’, see paragraphs 0050, 0052 and 0065 and fig. 2 of Gage, which teach a physical lane width, in the route of the vehicle 100; a minimum lane width is being equated to a physical damage of the route.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
In analyzing independent claims 1, 9 and 18, the limitations “examine a route parameter and a vehicle parameter to determine whether one or both of a route or a vehicle system are physically damaged; receive interface information associated with one or more interfaces used to communicate with one or more components of the vehicle system; receive application information associated with one or more applications configured to receive information from the one or more components of the vehicle system via the one or more interfaces” and “examination equipment configured to continually monitor the route and the vehicle system responsive to determining that the route or the vehicle system is physically damaged” are directed to an abstract idea, where examining and receiving includes making a decision to determine whether a route of a vehicle system is physically damaged. The abstract idea is substantially similar to the court identified abstract ideas collecting and comparing known information as found in Classen and the abstract ideas of generating tasks [based on] rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event in Accenture.
The additional element such as "a controller" is merely a generic computer element performing the generic computer function of examining and receiving which are routine and well-known in the art and are used merely for the purposes of carrying out the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 19-20 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claims 1, 9 and 18.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea and hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gage et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0130044), hereinafter, “Gage”, in view Miller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0255824), hereinafter, “Miller”.
3. As per claims 1, 9-12, 14, 18, 19 and 20, Gage discloses a system (system of fig. 1) comprising: a controller (vehicle control unit 300 of fig. 1) configured to: examine a route parameter (travel route itinerary parameters, as discloses in paragraph 0067) indicative of a health of a route over which a vehicle system travels and a vehicle parameter (parameters for a corridor region, as discloses in paragraph 0067) indicative of a health of the vehicle system to determine whether one or both of a route or a vehicle system are physically damaged (see paragraph 0065 and specifically paragraph 0067, which discloses “the memory 306 may store travel route itinerary parameters as conveyed by the handheld mobile device 104 and/or the head unit device 103, parameters for a corridor region defined by itinerary data that includes start point data and destination point data generated by a navigation user interface, a commuter region defined by learned commuting behaviors of a vehicle user, including a commute start point and destination data and corresponding travel time estimation data, a recorded corridor region defined by traveled itinerary data and associated time marker data”. Note, with respect to ‘physical damage’, see paragraphs 0050, 0052 and 0065 and fig. 2, which teach a physical lane width, in the route of the vehicle 100; a minimum lane width is being equated to a physical damage of the route); receive interface information (itinerary data) associated with one or more interfaces used to communicate with one or more components of the vehicle system (see paragraph 0067); receive application information (digital signature data, as discloses in paragraph 0068) associated with one or more applications (a digital wallet application) configured to receive information from the one or more components of the vehicle system via the one or more interfaces [see paragraph 0068, which discloses “the memory 306 may also store vehicle identification data, such as a vehicle identification number (VIN), vehicle location data (which may be retrieved via a GPS or other geospatial location device), vehicle identification number, vehicle location data relating to a position of the vehicle, vehicle time stamp data relating to the position of the vehicle at the time of an electronic commerce transaction request 120 is received, digital signature data specific to the vehicle, as may be assigned via a digital wallet application executable by the vehicle control unit, the handheld mobile device 104, the head unit device 103, and/or a combination thereof, and cryptographic key data based on the vehicle identification number for encryption of the data relating an electronic commerce transaction”]; store, based on the interface information and the application information, registration information (a cryptographic key data, as discloses in paragraph 0068) that indicates whether the one or more applications are permitted to communicate via the one or more interfaces (see paragraph 0068); receive, from an application (a digital wallet application) of the one or more applications, a request (an electronic commerce transaction request, as discloses in claim 9 of Gage) for vehicle information (an electronic commerce authentication, as discloses in claim 9 of Gage) from an interface of the one or more interfaces (see claim 9 of Gage, which discloses “9. A method in a vehicle control unit for providing electronic commerce transaction authentication, the method comprising: receiving, via a communication link formed with a trusted user device, an electronic commerce transaction request relating to a transaction source, wherein the electronic commerce transaction request including transaction source location and timestamp data; and authenticating the transaction source against a vehicle travel route parameter, generated via a navigation user interface, by: comparing the transaction source location and timestamp data with the vehicle travel route parameter; when the transaction source location and timestamp data compares favorably with the vehicle travel route parameter: generating, in response to the electronic commerce transaction request, an electronic commerce authentication that includes vehicle identification data; and transmitting, via the communication link, the electronic commerce authentication”); verify whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface (see claim 9 of Gage); selectively route the request for the vehicle information to the interface based on verifying whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface (see claim 9 of Gage); and control movement of the vehicle system based at least in part upon the examined route parameter and the examined vehicle parameter (see paragraph 0067, which discloses ‘travel route itinerary parameters’, being equated to claim ‘route parameter’ and ‘parameters for a corridor region’, being equated to claim ‘vehicle parameter’. Based on these parameters, the vehicle is moved in a particular route, being control; see paragraph 0067 disclosing, “the memory 306 may store travel route itinerary parameters as conveyed by the handheld mobile device 104 and/or the head unit device 103, parameters for a corridor region defined by itinerary data that includes start point data and destination point data generated by a navigation user interface, a commuter region defined by learned commuting behaviors of a vehicle user, including a commute start point and destination data and corresponding travel time estimation data, a recorded corridor region defined by traveled itinerary data and associated time marker data”).
But fails to specifically disclose wherein indications of health comprise a state of ware, a presence of foreign objects, or any combination thereof, and wherein physical damage comprises breakaqes, deterioration, or any combination thereof, implement one or more remedial actions when physical damage is determined; and examination equipment configured to continually monitor the route and the vehicle system responsive to determining that the route or the vehicle system is physically damaged.
Miller discloses wherein indications of health comprise a state of ware (note, claim ‘state of ware’ is being equated to ‘route damage’, as discloses in paragraph 0062, since Applicant’s specification doesn’t disclose ‘state of ware’) [see paragraph 0062, which discloses “for example, responsive to the image data indicating that an upcoming segment of the route is being worked on, is occupied by another vehicle, is impassible due to an obstacle on the route (e.g., an automobile stuck on the track at a crossing), route damage (e.g., a broken rail), a broken switch, a switch in an incorrect position, or the like, the control system may implement one or more remedial actions”], a presence of foreign objects, or any combination thereof, and wherein physical damage comprises breakaqes (see paragraph 0062, which discloses ‘broken rail’. For example, paragraph 0062, which discloses “for example, responsive to the image data indicating that an upcoming segment of the route is being worked on, is occupied by another vehicle, is impassible due to an obstacle on the route (e.g., an automobile stuck on the track at a crossing), route damage (e.g., a broken rail), a broken switch, a switch in an incorrect position, or the like, the control system may implement one or more remedial actions”], deterioration, or any combination thereof, implement one or more remedial actions when physical damage is determined [see paragraph 0062, which discloses “These actions can include, but are not limited to, generating a warning (e.g., visual, audible, or a combination thereof) to an operator of the non-aerial vehicle, automatically slowing or stopping movement of the non-aerial vehicle, communicating a request to an off-board location (e.g., dispatch center, maintenance facility, etc.) for repair, maintenance, and/or inspection of the upcoming segment of the route, change a scheduled trip or route of the vehicle to avoid the upcoming segment, or the like”]; and examination equipment (image analysis system 154 of fig. 12, as discloses in paragraph 0109) configured to continually monitor the route and the vehicle system (control unit of a vehicle, as discloses in paragraph 0117) responsive to determining that the route or the vehicle system is physically damaged [note, ‘in responsive’ to an image data showing damage on a route, as discloses in paragraphs 0060 and 0109 of Miller, image data analysis system 154 examine the data content of the image data, as discloses in paragraph 0109 and communicated a warning signal to the control unit of the vehicle, as discloses in paragraph 0117. The image data analysis system 154 examining the content of the image data and communicating a warning signal to the control unit of a vehicle is being equated to claim language ‘examination equipment configured to continually monitor the route and the vehicle system’, see paragraphs 0060, 0109 and 0117, particularly paragraph 0109, which discloses “FIG. 12 is a schematic illustration of the image analysis system 154 according to one embodiment. As described herein, the image analysis system can be used to examine the data content of the image data to automatically identify objects in the image data, damage in the route, or the like. A controller 1400 of the system includes or represents hardware circuits or circuitry that includes and/or is connected with one or more computer processors, such as one or more computer microprocessors. The controller can save image data obtained by the camera unit to one or more memory devices 1402 of the imaging system, generate alarm signals responsive to identifying one or more problems with the route and/or the wayside devices based on the image data that is obtained, or the like. The memory device 1402 includes one or more computer readable media used to at least temporarily store the image data. A suitable memory device can include a computer hard drive, flash or solid state drive, optical disk, or the like” and paragraph 0117, which discloses “In another embodiment, the image analysis system can examine the image data to identify text, signs, or the like, along the route. For example, information printed or displayed on signs, display devices, vehicles, or the like, indicating speed limits, locations, warnings, upcoming obstacles, identities of vehicles, or the like, may be autonomously read by the image analysis system. The image analysis system can identify information by the detection and reading of information on signs. In one aspect, the image analysis processor can detect information (e.g., text, images, or the like) based on intensities of pixels in the image data, based on wireframe model data generated based on the image data, or the like. The image analysis processor can identify the information and store the information in the memory device. The image analysis processor can examine the information, such as by using optical character recognition to identify the letters, numbers, symbols, or the like, that are included in the image data. This information may be used to autonomously and/or remotely control the vehicle, such as by communicating a warning signal to the control unit of a vehicle, which can slow the vehicle in response to reading a sign that indicates a speed limit that is slower than a current actual speed of the vehicle. As another example, this information may be used to identify the vehicle and/or cargo carried by the vehicle by reading the information printed or displayed on the vehicle”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s teaching of an off-board device, such as a wayside device/camera that’s associated with a transportation network, such as by representing the health or condition of a route over which a vehicle is moving and/or the location of the vehicle along the route in the transportation network, into Miller’s teaching of a device in a vehicle control unit for providing electronic commerce transaction authentication, for the benefit of having an off-board device, such as a video camara to capture video for traffic and safety reasons.
4. As per claim 3, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], wherein the controller is operable to receive at least a portion of the route parameter or the vehicle parameter from a stationary wayside unit disposed alongside the route being traveled by the vehicle system (see paragraph 0070 of Gage and paragraphs 0062 and 0070 of Miller).
5. As per claim 4, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 3” [See rejection to claim 3 above], wherein the controller is operable to receive the at least the portion of the route parameter or the vehicle parameter from the wayside unit that includes information relating to whether there is a problem or potential problem with a wheel of the vehicle system (see paragraphs 0050, 0052 and 0065 and fig. 2 of Gage and paragraphs 0062 and 0105 of Miller).
6. As per claims 5 and 16, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], wherein the controller is operable to switch operating modes of the vehicle system based on at least one of the route parameter or the vehicle parameter from discrete examinations or information communicated from examination equipment from continually monitoring the route or the vehicle system, wherein at least one of the operating modes comprises the controller slowing or stopping movement of the vehicle system, and wherein at least one of the operating modes comprises the controller monitoring the vehicle system for one or more indications that a wheel is exhibiting a problem with the vehicle system (see paragraphs 0050, 0052 and 0065 and fig. 2 of Gage and paragraph 0105 of Miller).
7. As per claims 6 and 13, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], where discloses where the interface is included in an interface group that includes a plurality of interfaces; and where the controller, when verifying whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface, is configured to: verify whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface group (see paragraph 0033 and claim 9 of Gage).
8. As per claim 7, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], where the controller, when verifying whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface, is configured to: determine one or more application types permitted to communicate via the interface; determine an application type of the application; and verify whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface based on the application type of the application and the one or more application types permitted to communicate via the interface (see paragraph 0033 and claim 9 of Gage).
9. As per claim 8, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], where the controller, when verifying whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface, is configured to: determine one or more entities whose applications are permitted to communicate via the interface; determine an entity associated with the application; and verify whether the application is permitted to communicate via the interface based on the entity associated with the application and the one or more entities whose applications are permitted to communicate via the interface (see paragraph 0033 and claim 9 of Gage).
10. As per claim 17, the combination of Gage and Miller discloses “The system of claim 9” [See rejection to claim 9 above], wherein the controller is operable to receive at least a portion of the route parameter and the vehicle parameter from a stationary wayside unit disposed alongside the route being traveled by the vehicle system (see paragraph 0070 of Gage), and wherein the controller is operable to receive the at least the portion of the route parameter and the vehicle parameter from the wayside unit that includes information relating to whether there is a problem or potential problem with a wheel of the vehicle system (see paragraphs 0050, 0052 and 0065 and fig. 2 of Gage and paragraph 0062 of Miller).
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
a(1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 have received a final action on the merits.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ernest Unelus whose telephone number is (571) 272-8596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
IMPORTANT NOTE
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Mr. Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached at the following telephone number: Area Code (571) 270-1023.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ernest Unelus/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights