DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 21-24 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments the specification objection is WITHDRAWN.
ii) Following Applicants’ arguments, the previously presented 101 rejection is MAINTAINED. Specifically, Applicants argue that the claims represent “inherently complex” subject matter which could not be practically performed mentally. However, the Examiner notes that the complexity with which Applicants interpret the claims are not explicitly recited. In fact, when looking at, for example, claim 1, the claim merely recites a cable route between two positions for a railway infrastructure. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims the alleged and argued complexity, such as complex infrastructure or underground cables, are not recited and the argued mental processes are still applicable. With respect to Applicants’ arguments regarding their alleged technical improvement the Examiner notes once again, in view of at least claim 1, that the claim lacks the specificity argued by Applicants. In fact, claim 1 does not recite any of the alleged “algorithmic determinations”, “large, multi-layered geospatial and engineering data”, or “multiple constraints” as argued by Applicants. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “algorithmic determinations”, “large, multi-layered geospatial and engineering data”, or “multiple constraints”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicants are encouraged to recite their alleged specificity and interpretation in the claims themselves to overcome the 101 rejection. As such the previously presented 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) Following Applicants’ arguments the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED. Specifically, Applicants argue the motivation to combine the prior art references of Ferketic, Haussler, and Gu. In response to applicant's argument that “Ferketic's disclosure is inseparably tied to a building- interior distribution system and database model, with no teaching or suggestion of cross-application with railway infrastructure” which appears to conclude that the prior arts represent nonanalogous art and further argues that the combination of the references “would not be straightforward”, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner clearly articulated the problem that needed to be addressed and how the combination of references addresses such problem. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case again, the Examiner clearly articulated the problem that needed to be addressed and how the combination of references addresses such problem. Once again Applicants appear to impart complexity and terms into their claims that are not explicitly recited. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “geospatial, corridor-scale routing across distributed railway asset”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As noted in the previous office action, and reiterated below the GIS platform of Gu “provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).” This is relevant to the claimed invention since a “person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic.” Further Haussler teaches:
“The construction industry promotes and develops modern and efficient technologies in an effort to respond to the increasing complexity of construction projects. Of these, the digitalization of the construction process using Building Information Modeling is one of the most well-known.(Haussler [page 1 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-5]).” As noted in the previous office action “Haussler provides an explanation of how the models are implemented in the context of railways, including using them for cable installation in FIG. 5, (Haussler [page 5]). This teaching shows that cable installation is part of the railway infrastructure. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of routing cables on a railway system in the system and method of Gu in view of Ferketic by modifying Gu in view of Ferketic with the BIMs of Haussler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu in view of Ferketic with Haussler to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.” The Examiner notes that Applicants appear to repeatedly impart limitations in the claim that are not explicitly recited and argues that interpretation of the claims rather than those presented to the office. The claims in view of broadest reasonable interpretation do recite the routing of a cable in a railway infrastructure and the presented combination of prior art teaches at least that limitation. Applicants are encouraged to recite their alleged specificity and interpretation in the claims themselves to overcome the prior art of record. As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
During examination, examiners should apply the same eligibility analysis to all claims regardless of the number of exceptions recited therein. Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas. Accordingly, if possible examiners should treat the claim for Prong Two and Step 2B purposes as containing a single judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a system so this claim falls within the statutory category of a machine. In order to apply to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded. The claim recites:
A computer-implemented method for determining at least one cable route for a railway infrastructure, the method comprising:
operating a graphical user interface for interacting with graphical representations of railway infrastructure on a map interface;
receiving a request for at least one cable route between a first position and a second position of the railway infrastructure;
obtaining railway infrastructure information indicative of configuration of the railway infrastructure between the first position and the second position;
determining the at least one cable route based on the railway infrastructure information; and
displaying on the graphical user interface the at least one cable route.
Under step 2A prong one, the bolded limitations are abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The determining step, stated at this level of generality can be performed in the human mind, as noted by the specification:
Thus, the design and management of the different cables of the railway infrastructure may be a tedious task.
(Specification [0003] lines 7-8).
The term “tedious” refers to the task being tedious to a human. Furthermore, the claim is similar to other limitations that have been determined by the courts to be mental processes:
a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - first bullet of examples reciting mental process).
Under step 2A prong two, the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Here, the claim recites five additional limitations: (1) A computer-implemented method for determining at least one cable route for a railway infrastructure, the method comprising: (2) operating a graphical user interface for interacting with graphical representations of railway infrastructure on a map interface; (3) receiving a request for at least one cable route between a first position and a second position of the railway infrastructure; (4) obtaining railway infrastructure information indicative of configuration of the railway infrastructure between the first position and the second position; and (5) displaying on the graphical user interface the at least one cable route.
The first additional limitation falls within the “apply it” category. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) – example (i) A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer. Similar to applying a mathematical algorithm on a general-purpose computer, performing a method directed to mental process on a general-purpose computer is using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The second additional limitation and the fifth additional limitation are referring to a specific technological environment (i.e., graphic user interface), (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limiting the scope of the invention to a specific technical environment is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The third and fourth limitations are “mere data gathering” limitations (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “receiving” limitation is similar to the first example in the “data gathering” section of the MPEP, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(mere data gathering examples, bullet i). “Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”). The obtained input in the instant case is for a mental process, but the well-known equation/algorithm for solving this problem is known as the Dijkstra Algorithm, (see “A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs” (1959-Dijkstra)), which can be performed mentally or using a computer. The fourth limitation is similar to the fourth example in the “data gathering” section of the MPEP, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(mere data gathering examples, bullet iv). “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”). The “obtaining” limitation uses the same language, but instead of “verifying” the limitation is used as a constraint in the following “determining” mental process limitation.
If the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, then it would be patent eligible. Here, the claim is generally linked to “railway infrastructure” (see Specification [0003], but how the infrastructure is actually used is not claimed. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing 2106.05(h).
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that is beyond the judicial exceptions. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined to be extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
Here, the “receiving” and “obtaining” limitations are additional limitations that require further analysis. These additional limitations are not significantly more because the courts have found similar limitations to not be significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) examples (i), (iv), and (v) - receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document. In the context of the claim, “receiving” and “obtaining” specific data refers to extracting data, transferring it, and storing it for processing later in the claim.
After reviewing the specification and looking at the claim as a whole, there is no indication that this claim is directed to a combination of known elements arranged or organized in an unconventional manner. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, generic computer components may be arranged in the conventional manner to perform the claimed limitations. Therefore, looking at the claim as an ordered combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 2, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein receiving the request includes receiving a first selection of a first component of the railway infrastructure at the first position and a second selection of a second component of the railway infrastructure at the second position. The limitation is not a mental process or mathematical idea, but instead is directed to data gathering and particular types of data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In that context, the data gathering limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application. Under a significantly more analysis, the only additional limitations are not significantly more because the courts have found similar limitations to not be significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) examples (i), (iv), and (v) - receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document. In the context of the claim, “receiving...” data refers to extracting data, transferring it, and storing it for processing later in the claim. For the foregoing reasons, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 3, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein receiving the request includes receiving a selection of at least one intermediary position between the first position and the second position. The limitation is not a mental process or mathematical idea, but instead is directed to data gathering and particular types of data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In that context, the data gathering limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application. Under a significantly more analysis, the only additional limitations are not significantly more because the courts have found similar limitations to not be significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) examples (i), (iv), and (v) - receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document. In the context of the claim, “receiving...” data refers to extracting data, transferring it, and storing it for processing later in the claim. For the foregoing reasons, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 4, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein displaying the at least one cable route includes overlaying the at least one cable route on the map interface. The limitation is not a mental process or mathematical idea, but instead is directed to field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)(example iv. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, the focus is on how to display the results. In that context, the field of use limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application. Under a significantly more analysis, the field of use analysis also applies. For the foregoing reasons, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 5, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein displaying the at least one cable route includes displaying at least one of a plurality of layers of a cable routing plan. The limitation is not a mental process or mathematical idea, but instead is directed to field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)(example iv. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, the focus is on how to display the results. In that context, the field of use limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application. Under a significantly more analysis, the field of use analysis also applies. For the foregoing reasons, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 6, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: determining a presence of conflict for the at least one cable route. Determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine conflicts by looking at a route and determining that it violates a known constraint such as capacity, length, or type constraints. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 7, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein determining the presence of conflict for the at least one cable route includes performing a design validation process for the at least one cable route. Determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine conflicts with a design validation process by looking at a route and determining that it violates a known design constraint such as capacity, length, or type constraints. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 6. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 8, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein determining the presence of conflict for the at least one cable route includes performing a regulatory validation process for the at least one cable route.. Determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine conflicts with a design validation process by looking at a route and determining that it violates a known regulation constraint such as capacity, length, or type constraints. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. The claim limitation is also directed to the judicial exception of “Legal Interactions” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)). Here, the abstract idea is determining a structure complies with a legal code or standard. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 6. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 9, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: including proposing another cable route in the presence of a conflict. Proposing/determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine conflicts by looking at a route and determining that it violates a known constraint such as capacity, length, or type constraints, and determine a second route that does not violate the constraints. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 6. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 10, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein determining the at least one cable route includes determining: a type of containment for the at least one cable route; a type of cable for the at least one cable route; a cable size for the at least one cable route; a number of connections between the first position and the second position; and/or a cable fill percentage of at least one conduit for the at least one cable route. Determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine a type or size of something by looking at it and applying a known categorization. Determining fill percentage is closer to a mathematical equation, but stated at this level of generality, the process can be performed mentally using estimation. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 11, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein determining the at least one cable route includes determining an optimal route between the first position and the second position from a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position. Determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine an optimal route as a matter of taste. Determining an optimal route could also be a mathematical equation (such as solving an optimization problem), but stated at this level of generality, the process can be performed mentally using estimation. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 12, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein determining an optimal route includes determining a shortest route between the first position and the second position which has capacity for at least one cable to be routed for the at least one cable route. Determining stated at this high level of generality is a mental process. A person can for example determine an optimal by comparing lengths of routes. Determining an optimal route could also be a mathematical equation (such as solving an optimization problem), but stated at this level of generality, the process can be performed mentally using estimation. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 13, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 9 claims a system so this claim falls within the statutory category of a machine. Under step 2A prong two, “A system for determining at least one cable route for a railway infrastructure, the system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which cause the processor to perform:” is an “apply it” limitation, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), because additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the regarding the rest of the analysis, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 13 is rejected for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 14, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 2, claim 14 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 15, incorporating the rejections of claim 14 and claim 3, claim 15 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 16, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 4, claim 16 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 5, claim 17 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 6, claim 18 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, incorporating the rejections of claim 18 and claim 7, claim 19 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, incorporating the rejections of claim 18 and claim 8, claim 20 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "High-precision Electronic Map of Jinan City and Telecommunications Graphical Machine-line Resources Management System Based on DPS and 3S Technology" (Gu) in view of U.S. 5,021,968 (Ferketic) in further view of "Model-based quality assurance in railway infrastructure planning" (Haussler)
With respect to claim 1, Gu teaches A computer-implemented method for determining at least one cable route for a railway infrastructure, the method comprising (MapInfo software, vector data edited by each layer and attribute data entered are conducted for all telecommunications machine-line facilities data, which is overlaid into electronic map to achieve the integration of vector with raster data and the integration of spatial data with attribute data, [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 3-8]; the layers include a "railway" layer, shown in Table I, [page 4]; where "The system ... can also perform ... optical fiber cable routing-aided design", [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 15-20]): operating a graphical user interface for interacting with graphical representations of railway infrastructure on a map interface (Form initial Digital Line Graphic by stereo-compilation under stereoscopic environment and transfer it into the MapInfo GIS software platform..., [page 2 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 3-6] and then "Vectograph, images map and thematic mapping are made to appear in the computer system at the same time to achieve the integration of vector with raster data", [page 2 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 10-12]; MapInfo software, vector data edited by each layer and attribute data entered are conducted for all telecommunications machine-line facilities data, which is overlaid into electronic map to achieve the integration of vector with raster data and the integration of spatial data with attribute data, [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 3-8]; the layers include a "railway" layer, shown in Table I, [page 4]).
Gu does not teach receiving a request for at least one cable route between a first position and a second position of the railway infrastructure; obtaining railway infrastructure information indicative of configuration of the railway infrastructure between the first position and the second position; determining at least one cable route based on the railway infrastructure information; and displaying on the graphical user interface the at least one cable route.
However, Ferketic teaches receiving a request for at least one cable route between a first position and a second position of the ... infrastructure (To execute the routing procedure first, the origin of the cable must be identified, [col 12 ln 18-19]; The graphics database then is searched through to locate that point which coincides with the location designated as the origin, [col 12 ln 22-25]; In a similar manner, the destination location and the destination slack is identified, [col 12 ln 29-31]; where the graphics database refers to the database that is populated with infrastructure/building structure included from a larger building database that is commonly used in the fabrication industry, [col 4 ln 42-48]); obtaining ... infrastructure information indicative of configuration of the ... infrastructure between the first position and the second position (When the define route mode is activated, the following steps occur to determine various routes which connect the origin and destination points, [col 12 ln 39-41]; More specifically, in this search level and in all subsequent search levels, a memory array is utilized wherein each element has beginning and ending coordinates stored therein. The memory array is created from the graphics database with the information concerning the beginning and ending coordinates of each element of length, but without any other information such as pointer information, [col 12 ln 60-67]; as previously noted, the database is populated with infrastructure/building structure included from a larger building database that is commonly used in the fabrication industry, [col 4 ln 42-48]); determining at least one cable route based on the ... infrastructure information (performing the search, see [col 12 ln 41-55]; followed by "This process is repeated through a total of seven levels. When a common element of length is identified between the origin element of length and the destination element of length, the path created to arrive at the common element of length from the origin is connected to the path followed to reach the common element of length from the destination. In this way, a route is created connecting the origin and destination, [col 13 ln 15-22]; as previously noted, the database is populated with infrastructure/building structure included from a larger building database that is commonly used in the fabrication industry, [col 4 ln 42-48]); and displaying on the graphical user interface the at least one cable route (The shortest route is presented first to the user for possible use, [col 13 ln 31-32]; for presenting, the reference describes IGDS, which is the GUI library implemented to yield the disclosed cable management system, [col 5 ln 1-8]).
Gu and Ferketic do not teach (i) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure; (ii) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure; (iii) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure; (iv) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure.
However, Haussler teaches (i) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure (see FIG. 5 showing building structure for a rail transport system, where some of the infrastructure includes cable installation, [page 5]); (ii) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure (see FIG. 5 showing building structure for a rail transport system, where some of the infrastructure includes cable installation, [page 5]); (iii) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure (see FIG. 5 showing building structure for a rail transport system, where some of the infrastructure includes cable installation, [page 5]); (iv) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure (see FIG. 5 showing building structure for a rail transport system, where some of the infrastructure includes cable installation, [page 5]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gui in view of Ferketic with Haussler because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu in view of Ferketic discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for a building model that models railway infrastructure specifically. Ferketic teaches that building information comes from outside databases, (Ferketic [col 4 ln 44-48]), and Haussler teaches:
The construction industry promotes and develops modern and efficient technologies in an effort to respond to the increasing complexity of construction projects. Of these, the digitalization of the construction process using Building Information Modeling is one of the most well-known.
(Haussler [page 1 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-5]).
Essentially, the construction industry has widely adopted building information models as the external databases, and Haussler provides an explanation of how the models are implemented in the context of railways, including using them for cable installation in FIG. 5, (Haussler [page 5]). This teaching shows that cable installation is part of the railway infrastructure. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of routing cables on a railway system in the system and method of Gu in view of Ferketic by modifying Gu in view of Ferketic with the BIMs of Haussler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu in view of Ferketic with Haussler to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 2, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein receiving the request includes receiving a first selection of a first component of the railway infrastructure at the first position and a second selection of a second component of the railway infrastructure at the second position.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein receiving the request includes receiving a first selection of a first component of the ... infrastructure at the first position and a second selection of a second component of the ... infrastructure at the second position (To execute the routing procedure first, the origin of the cable must be identified, [col 12 ln 18-19]; The graphics database then is searched through to locate that point which coincides with the location designated as the origin, [col 12 ln 22-25]; In a similar manner, the destination location and the destination slack is identified, [col 12 ln 29-31]; the database is populated with infrastructure/building structure included from a larger building database that is commonly used in the fabrication industry, [col 4 ln 42-48]; this is part of the “The first step of defining the building structure within which the cable will be located requires information pertaining to the coordinates of every structural feature important and related to the cable to be entered into a
computer memory. For example, the locations of all components and the beginning and ending points of all elements of length that comprise the structure must be identified”, [col 3 ln 63]-[col 4 ln 2]; the term “coincides” is referring to registration between cable origin and structural features that were imported having the same location).
Gu and Ferketic do not teach (v) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure.
However, Haussler teaches (v) where infrastructure is railway infrastructure (see FIG. 5 showing building structure for a rail transport system, where some of the infrastructure includes cable installation, [page 5]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gui in view of Ferketic with Haussler because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu in view of Ferketic discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for a building model that models railway infrastructure specifically. Ferketic teaches that building information comes from outside databases, (Ferketic [col 4 ln 44-48]), and Haussler teaches:
The construction industry promotes and develops modern and efficient technologies in an effort to respond to the increasing complexity of construction projects. Of these, the digitalization of the construction process using Building Information Modeling is one of the most well-known.
(Haussler [page 1 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-5]).
Essentially, the construction industry has widely adopted building information models as the external databases, and Haussler provides an explanation of how the models are implemented in the context of railways, including using them for cable installation in FIG. 5, (Haussler [page 5]). This teaching shows that cable installation is part of the railway infrastructure. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of routing cables on a railway system in the system and method of Gu in view of Ferketic by modifying Gu in view of Ferketic with the BIMs of Haussler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu in view of Ferketic with Haussler to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 3, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein receiving the request includes receiving a selection of at least one intermediary position between the first position and the second position.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein receiving the request includes receiving a selection of at least one intermediary position between the first position and the second position (starting from the origin, [col 15 ln 35]; next raceway which must be connected to the previously identified raceway is located by the mouse, [col 15 ln 38-39]; where the check is still made between the destination and the latest rep line/intermediate position, [col 15 ln 54-56]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Gu further teaches wherein displaying the at least one cable route includes overlaying the at least one cable route on the map interface ("The system ... can also perform ... optical fiber cable routing-aided design", [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 15-20]; Apply MapInfo software to conduct ground feature layer editing and attribute data input, [page 4 col 2 paragraph 1 lines 8-10]; this includes specific info such as lines of communication, [page 3 col 1 paragraph 4 lines 11-13]; where the vector data edited by each layer and attribute data entered are conducted for all telecommunications machine-line facilities data, which is overlaid into electronic map to achieve the integration of vector with raster data and the integration of spatial data with attribute data, [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 3-8]).
With respect to claim 5, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Gu further teaches wherein displaying the at least one cable route includes displaying at least one of a plurality of layers of a cable routing plan ("The system ... can also perform ... optical fiber cable routing-aided design", [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 15-20]; Apply MapInfo software to conduct ground feature layer editing and attribute data input, [page 4 col 2 paragraph 1 lines 8-10]; this includes specific info such as lines of communication, [page 3 col 1 paragraph 4 lines 11-13]; where the vector data edited by each layer and attribute data entered are conducted for all telecommunications machine-line facilities data, which is overlaid into electronic map to achieve the integration of vector with raster data and the integration of spatial data with attribute data, [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 3-8]).
With respect to claim 6, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Gu does not teach including determining a presence of conflict for the at least one cable route.
However, Ferketic teaches including determining a presence of conflict for the at least one cable route (During the operation of the routing program once a complete route is found, logistic checks are performed via subroutine autochecks. Subroutine autochecks performs necessary checks on the complete route in order to validate that route. The autocheck subroutine performs three major checks on a complete route. First, it eliminates any lengthy routes found to be longer than the defined maxi mum length of the active cable type. It also eliminates any self-crossing routes which are those routes where one segment crosses over another segment of the same route. The autocheck subroutine also checks for the route using the same trench more than once, and disregards the route if a valid route has already been found, [col 13 ln 44-57]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein determining the presence of conflict for the at least one cable route includes performing a design validation process for the at least one cable route.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein determining the presence of conflict for the at least one cable route includes performing a design validation process for the at least one cable route (During the operation of the routing program once a complete route is found, logistic checks are performed via subroutine autochecks. Subroutine autochecks performs necessary checks on the complete route in order to validate that route. The autocheck subroutine performs three major checks on a complete route. First, it eliminates any lengthy routes found to be longer than the defined maxi mum length of the active cable type. It also eliminates any self-crossing routes which are those routes where one segment crosses over another segment of the same route. The autocheck subroutine also checks for the route using the same trench more than once, and disregards the route if a valid route has already been found, [col 13 ln 44-57]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein determining the presence of conflict for the at least one cable route includes performing a design validation process for the at least one cable route.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein determining the presence of conflict for the at least one cable route includes performing a ... validation process for the at least one cable route (During the operation of the routing program once a complete route is found, logistic checks are performed via subroutine autochecks. Subroutine autochecks performs necessary checks on the complete route in order to validate that route. The autocheck subroutine performs three major checks on a complete route. First, it eliminates any lengthy routes found to be longer than the defined maximum length of the active cable type. It also eliminates any self-crossing routes which are those routes where one segment crosses over another segment of the same route. The autocheck subroutine also checks for the route using the same trench more than once, and disregards the route if a valid route has already been found, [col 13 ln 44-57]).
Ferketic does not teach that the validation process is a regulatory validation process.
However, Haussler teaches the validation process is a regulatory validation process (ISO 19650 demands the implementation of quality checks when project data is transitioning from one status to the other, i.e. from Work in progress to Shared or from Shared to Published, [page 2 col 1 paragraph 3 lines 1-3]; the autocheck subroutines of Ferketic are regulatory by ISO 19650 as noted by Haussler because they occur in between stages, a route has been planned for execution but before work-in-progress has started).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gui in view of Ferketic with Haussler because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu in view of Ferketic discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for a building model that models railway infrastructure specifically. Ferketic teaches that building information comes from outside databases, (Ferketic [col 4 ln 44-48]), and Haussler teaches:
The construction industry promotes and develops modern and efficient technologies in an effort to respond to the increasing complexity of construction projects. Of these, the digitalization of the construction process using Building Information Modeling is one of the most well-known.
(Haussler [page 1 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-5]).
Essentially, the construction industry has widely adopted building information models as the external databases, and Haussler provides an explanation of how the models are implemented in the context of railways, including using them for cable installation in FIG. 5, (Haussler [page 5]). This teaching shows that cable installation is part of the railway infrastructure. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of routing cables on a railway system in the system and method of Gu in view of Ferketic by modifying Gu in view of Ferketic with the BIMs of Haussler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu in view of Ferketic with Haussler to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 9, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as noted above. Gu does not teach including proposing another cable route in the presence of a conflict.
However, Ferketic teaches including proposing another cable route in the presence of a conflict (During the operation of the routing program once a complete route is found, logistic checks are performed via subroutine autochecks. Subroutine autochecks performs necessary checks on the complete route in order to validate that route, [col 13 ln 44-49]; After all possible connecting routes are determined, each length is calculated, and the routes are sorted from shortest length to longest length, [col 13 ln 28-31]; so the invalid route is naturally eliminated by the validation check and the algorithm continues to search for all valid routes).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein determining the at least one cable route includes determining: a type of containment for the at least one cable route; a type of cable for the at least one cable route; a cable size for the at least one cable route; a number of connections between the first position and the second position; and/or a cable fill percentage of at least one conduit for the at least one cable route.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein determining the at least one cable route includes determining: a type of containment for the at least one cable route; a type of cable for the at least one cable route; a cable size for the at least one cable route; a number of connections between the first position and the second position; and/or a cable fill percentage of at least one conduit for the at least one cable route (At the same time each route is calculated, the percent fill capacity at all points along the determined connecting route is also calculated. If the percent fill capacity exceeds the defined value for the system, the user is alerted, [col 13 ln 34-38]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein determining the at least one cable route includes determining an optimal route between the first position and the second position from a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein determining the at least one cable route includes determining an optimal route between the first position and the second position from a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position (first input origin, [col 12 ln 18-19], and destination, [col 12 ln 29-30]; After all possible connecting routes are determined, each length is calculated, and the routes are sorted from shortest length to longest length. The shortest route is presented first to the user for possible use. If the user rejects that route, then the next shortest route or alternate is presented, and so on, until an acceptable route appears to the user [col 13 ln 28-34]; where the “shortest route” is the optimal route).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, Gu in view of Ferketic and Haussler teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as noted above. Gu does not teach wherein determining an optimal route includes determining a shortest route between the first position and the second position which has capacity for at least one cable to be routed for the at least one cable route.
However, Ferketic teaches wherein determining an optimal route includes determining a shortest route between the first position and the second position which has capacity for at least one cable to be routed for the at least one cable route. (first input origin, [col 12 ln 18-19], and destination, [col 12 ln 29-30]; During the operation of the routing program once a complete route is found, logistic checks are performed via subroutine auto checks. Subroutine autochecks performs necessary checks on the complete route in order to validate that route, [col 13 ln 44-49]; A valid route is defined as one that runs from the origin to the destination without any capacity problems and also passes the two previous checks, [col 13 ln 58-60]; After all possible connecting routes are determined, each length is calculated, and the routes are sorted from shortest length to longest length. The shortest route is presented first to the user for possible use. If the user rejects that route, then the next shortest route or alternate is presented, and so on, until an acceptable route appears to the user [col 13 ln 28-34]; where the “shortest route” is the optimal route).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Gu with Ferketic because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Gu discloses a system and method to create a GIS platform, and then provides various suggestions of how the GIS platform may be used:
The system provides automatic management database for pipelines, underground wells, pores, pole lines, electrical poles, distribution box, electrical cables, optical cables, etc affiliated to telecommunications bureau and at the same time has flexible and diverse facility maintenance function. The system can conveniently and visually conduct query, statistics and analysis and also can perform auto-wiring, wiring in a timely manner, obstacle analysis, asset management, pipeline-aided design, optical fiber cable routing-aided design, potential users analysis etc., to achieve the scientific management of telecommunications departments.
(Gu [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 11-22])(Emphasis added).
Thus, Gu provides the suggestion, and Ferketic provides the implementation. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing cable routing of Gu by modifying Gu with the actual algorithm of Ferketic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu with Ferketic to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 13, Gu teaches A system for determining at least one cable route for a railway infrastructure, the system comprising (desktop computer, [page 3 col 2 paragraph 2 line 1]; running the software, [page 3 col 2 paragraph 3]; MapInfo software, vector data edited by each layer and attribute data entered are conducted for all telecommunications machine-line facilities data, which is overlaid into electronic map to achieve the integration of vector with raster data and the integration of spatial data with attribute data, [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 3-8]; the layers include a "railway" layer, shown in Table I, [page 4]; where "The system ... can also perform ... optical fiber cable routing-aided design", [page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 15-20]): a processor (Intel Corel processor, [page 3 col 2 paragraph 2 line 1]); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which cause the processor to perform (internal storage, [page 3 col 2 paragraph 2 line 2]; stores the software, [page 3 col 2 paragraph 3]; that runs the Mapinfo software, see [Abstract]).
With regard to the rest of claim 13, incorporating the rejections of claim 1, claim 13 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 14, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 2, claim 14 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 15, incorporating the rejections of claim 14 and claim 3, claim 15 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 16, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 4, claim 16 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 5, claim 17 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 6, claim 18 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, incorporating the rejections of claim 18 and claim 7, claim 19 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, incorporating the rejections of claim 18 and claim 8, claim 20 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Conclusion
6. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
7. All Claims are rejected.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11087034 B1 (Walke) - Some examples of capital projects includes developing and maintaining roads, railways, power plants, ships, offshore oil platforms, dams, large aircraft, and factories, [col 3 ln 57-59]; As shown, the simulator 400 has a project modeler 402 configured to model the large-scale capital project as a virtual model, a cable router 404 configured to lay out a plurality of cables across the virtual model of the large scale capital project, and a cable routing manager 406 configured to determine optimized routes of the plurality of cables across the virtual model of the large scale capital project, [col 6 ln 52-58]; user lays out cables between various points across the virtual model of the capital project. As known by those skilled in the art, some or all of the paths of cables follows some of the previously positioned cable trays in the virtual model. At this point in the process, the cable routing manager 406 knows the actual length of each of the cables laid out in the virtual model. Next, the cable routing manager 406 determines the optimized routes or paths for the cables (step 504), [col 7 ln 51-59].
EP 3528185 A1 (Geis) - Use of geographical information from various data sources (e.g.B. existing cable routes, property data, protected areas, roads, railway lines, etc.) toautomatically create the optimal route for the fiber optic cables, [0007] bullet 3; Automatic calculation of routing with the lowest cost (i.e., lowest technical effort) for the construction and deployment of fiber optics in selected or specified areas, [0007] bullet 4.
“A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs” (1959-Dijkstra) – Problem 2. Find the path of minimum total length between two given nodes P and Q. The algorithm presented (steps 1 and 2) provides the shortest path between two nodes P and Q, [page 270].
“Ant Colony Optimization Based Simulation Of 3d Automatic Hose/Pipe Routing” (2009-Thantulage) - Automatic hose and harness routing includes selecting at least a pair of connection points, including a start point and an end point, and determining a desired path between the start and the end points. In real-world applications, the best possible path needs to be obtained under multiple objectives and constraints. Furthermore, the hose routing method must include a validity check on the desired path in order to decide whether the desired path is valid. An example showing the desired path is illustrated in red in Fig. 2.1, [page 8].
PNG
media_image1.png
392
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1010
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
List of algorithms along with citations, [page 22].
“A Genetic Approach To The Cable Harness Routing Problem” (1994-Conru) - This paper describes a system for automatically routing cable harnesses in three-dimensional environments using a pair of genetic algorithms. The cable harness routing problem (CHRP) can be formulated as a graph search problem with a large, convex search space. A genetic approach is used to intelligently and adaptively search for routings which are close to the global optimum. The CHRP is decomposed into two problems: generating a harness configuration (topology) and routing the harness in the environment. This paper will define the various genetic operators used and suggest parameter settings which quickly find routings which match the geometry of the environment, [Abstract].
“Last Mile Cable Route Optimization using OpenStreetMap Data - An Experiment” (Prossegger) - Based on OpenStreetMap data, a graph, as the fundamental structure of the applied operations research algorithm, is generated and weighted with real-world construction costs. Running an area-wide network construction experiment, the quality and validity of the generated graph is compared to a graph based on commercial spatial data. The results show that the approach of using collaborative collected spatial data in the last mile cable route optimization is promising, [Abstract] lines 11-19; is step 3) of preprocessing polyline objects are created for railways, [page 75 col 2 paragraph 1 bullet 3]; the edges are weighted according to Table II using Algorithm 2, [page 77]; and a graph is generated between terminals in Algorithm 1, [page 76]; FIG. 6 shows an optimized cable route result, [page 77].
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
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).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights