DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on February 24, 2026.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter is maintained.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bamfield is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bamfield is maintained.
Rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Connelly is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Connelly and Sharkey is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Ward is newly asserted.
Rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Ward and Connelly is newly asserted.
Rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Ward, Connelly, and Sharkey is newly asserted.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, for the following reasons, Examiner is not persuaded:
First, Applicant asserts that “claims 1 and 11 as amended recite limitations that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Response at pg. 2. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the amended limitation “the track plan includes default programming parameters for configuring a grade crossing controller, and wherein the track plan is configured to be uploaded to and program the grade crossing controller to control traffic warning devices at the highway-rail grade crossing” “ties the claimed subject matter to a concrete technological result involving physical safety equipment.” Id.
However, the “track plan” is only configured to be uploaded and utilized for programming. The uploading and programming are not claimed as steps in the method. Instead, the amended limitations are an intended use for the track plan and do not impose meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. Thus, the amended language does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application or improve a technological field.
Further, Applicant asserts that claim 10, as presented, recites a “specific machine-a grade crossing controller-that stores and displays track plan data for use in controlling a highway-rail grade crossing.” Response at pg. 3. However, Examiner is not persuaded. The Applicant cites to the Specification, which details how the controller can be utilized, but the claim does not recite any of the limitations that are described in the disclosure. For example, the claim recites that the controller “display[s] the graphical representation of the track plan on demand.” However, the claim lacks the limitations of providing the representation to personnel, animating the track plan, and/or other details other than that the track plan is configured to display the track plan “on demand.” Besides the claim including intended use for the controller, nothing in the claim requires any particular computing device. For example, the “controller,” as claimed, could be a laptop displaying a web interface, a cellular device, and/or any other generic computing device while still being capable of displaying a representation of the track plan when a request is received to do so.
In summary, claims 1 and 11 recite mental processes that are performed by a generic computing device. The “generating” steps recite displaying, on a generic computer device, known information. The additional elements are recitations of generic computer components, receiving user input, and storing a track plan. None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exceptions (i.e., the generating steps) into a practical application nor provide a technological improvement. Further, the additional elements recite limitations that courts have found to be insignificantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 10 recites a generic computing device that is configured to perform some functionality but is not recited as actually performing the functionality. The claim does not recite any limitations on hardware, software, and/or other computing configurations that would limit the scope of the claim to any non-generic configuration.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Examiner is persuaded by the amendments and arguments as related to claims 1 and 11 (and the corresponding dependent claims). Examiner agrees that Bamfield does not teach nor disclose at least “input comprising a drag-and-drop selection of objects out of the plurality of objects,” as now recited. Accordingly, rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, a new rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11-20 is asserted herein in view of Ward.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments. The reference discloses a “controller” and the controller includes a display that provides track information to a user. The claim does not include limitations on what constitutes a “track plan,” what is meant by “on demand,” and/or other limitations that relate to when the track information is displayed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 4-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the previous rejections are withdrawn in light of the new reference cited in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn and new rejections are asserts in view of Ward.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 14 recite the limitation "a grade crossing controller," which is additionally recited in claims 1 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that recitations of generic computer components and steps of receiving, transmitting, and storing data are not significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A graphical configuration editor for highway-rail grade crossings, the graphical configuration editor comprising:
a storage device comprising an application, and a processor configured to execute instructions of the application to
generate, on a display, identifications of a plurality of objects for controlling a grade crossing,
receive user input comprising a drag-and-drop selection of objects out of the plurality of objects,
generate, on the display, a visual representation of a track plan using the selected objects, and
store the track plan in the storage device, wherein the track plan includes default programming parameters for configuring1 a grade crossing controller, and wherein the track plan is configured to be uploaded to and program the grade crossing controller to control traffic warning devices at the highway-rail grade crossing.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating identifications for objects is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/using a generic computer as an aid to perform the generation. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, the generation of identifications can include a human determining a value for an identification and assigning the value to an object.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating a representation of a track plan is a mental process that can be performed by a human. For example, utilizing a generic computer, the user can utilize a graphical program to select objects and/or images representative of objects in the track plan and arrange the objects via an interface. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A graphical configuration editor for highway-rail grade crossings, the graphical configuration editor comprising: a storage device comprising an application, and a processor configured to execute instructions of the application to
generate, on a display, identifications of a plurality of objects for controlling a grade crossing,
receive user input comprising a drag-and-drop selection of objects out of the plurality of objects,
generate, on the display, a visual representation of a track plan using the selected objects, and
store the track plan in the storage device, wherein the track plan includes default programming parameters for configuring a grade crossing controller, and wherein the track plan is configured to be uploaded to and program the grade crossing controller to control traffic warning devices at the highway-rail grade crossing.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Providing data (i.e., storing data) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is stored and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Reciting generic computer components to perform a judicial exception is not significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, receiving data and storing data are additional elements that courts have found to do amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See also, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein each object includes default programming parameters for a grade crossing controller. The limitation does not include any additional elements and instead merely further specifies what is included with the objects that are already recited. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the identifications of the plurality of objects comprise visual representations. The claim merely further specifies the types of identifications that were recited in claim 1. Generating the identifications has been identified as a judicial exception and specifying that the identifications are visual does not change the analysis. For example, a user can select an image from a library of images to associate with an object as an identifier. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the identifications of the plurality of objects comprise predefined tiles with visual representations. The claim merely further specifies the types of identifications that were recited in claim 1. Generating the identifications has been identified as a judicial exception and specifying that the identifications are visual does not change the analysis. For example, a user can select a tile with an image from a library of images to associate with an object as an identifier. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the predefined tiles are manually configurable. The claim merely further specifies the type of tiles that are selected and does not include additional elements, thus the claim does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the plurality of objects comprises grade crossing device(s) of the grade crossing and/or remote devices for controlling the grade crossing. The claim further specifies the type of objects that are represented. However, the claim recites additional elements that indicate a field of use for the judicial exceptions, which courts have found does not integrate the application into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the plurality of objects comprises track lines, track circuits, termination shunts, insulated joints. The claim further specifies the type of objects that are represented. However, the claim recites additional elements that indicate a field of use for the judicial exceptions, which courts have found does not integrate the application into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the remote devices relate to devices installed in an environment of the grade crossing, wherein the remote devices are pre-configured and selectable to supplement the graphical representation of the track plan. The claim further specifies the type of objects that are represented. However, the claim recites additional elements that indicate a field of use for the judicial exceptions, which courts have found does not integrate the application into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the selected objects and/or the visual representation of the track plan are manually configurable. The claim merely further specifies the functionality of the recited objects and does not include additional elements, thus the claim does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites a grade crossing controller comprising a storage device and a display, wherein the grade crossing controller stores a graphical representation of a track plan and is configured to display the graphical representation of the track plan on demand. Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites a method that includes steps substantially the same as the steps executed by the processor recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 11 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 12-13
Claims 12 and 13 are substantially the same as claims 2 and 3. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 2 and 3, claims 12 and 13 are directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites programming a grade crossing controller based on the visual representation of the track plan, utilizing the default programming parameters of the selected objects. The claim recites a mental process that can be performed by a human. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2), Subsection III. Additionally or alternatively, the claim recites mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), examples i to vi. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites storing the visual representation of the track plan in the grade crossing controller. Providing data (i.e., storing data) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is stored and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites displaying the visual representation of the track plan on a display of the grade crossing controller. Providing data (i.e., transmitting data for display) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is provided and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, displaying data in a generic manner using generic computer components is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites transmitting the visual representation of the track plan to a remote storage device, wherein the track plan is retrievable from the remote storage device via another device or application. Transmitting data is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein the remote storage device is located at a remote operations control center. The limitation does not include additional elements and therefore does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites wherein the track plan is retrievable from the remote storage device via a web application or a mobile application. The limitation does not include additional elements and therefore does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by a computer perform a method for creating a visual representation of a track plan as claimed in claim 11. Generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, claim 20 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bamfield (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0265111, hereinafter “Bamfield”).
Claim 10
Bamfield discloses:
a grade crossing controller comprising a storage device and a display, wherein the grade crossing controller stores a graphical representation of a track plan and is configured to display the graphical representation of the track plan on demand.
For example, the screens 140-142 in FIGS. 8A-8C are representative of the types of screens that will appear on display 42 of controller 40 during the template programming. Bamfield at [0038].
A graphic representation or depiction of the selected template may appear in another field 150 of screen 142 so that the user can visually identify or confirm the selected template. Bamfield at [0039].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Ward, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,419,297, hereinafter “Ward”).
Claim 1
Bamfield discloses:
A graphical configuration editor for highway-rail grade crossings, the graphical configuration editor comprising:
The Office Configuration Editor (OCE) tool runs under the Microsoft Windows operating system, and allows designers to select the appropriate templates without having to be connected in the field with a physical controller 40. Bamfield at [0036].
a storage device comprising an application, and
A general object of the present invention is to provide a simplified means of designing applications for a controller for a highway-rail grade crossing. Bamfield [0005].
a processor configured to execute instructions of the application to
Other modules may include a central processing unit (CPU) 43… Bamfield at [0029].
generate, on a display, identifications of a plurality of objects for controlling a grade crossing,
A graphic representation or depiction of the selected template may appear in another field 150 of screen 142 so that the user can visually identify or confirm the selected template. Bamfield at [0039].
The templates 60-132 in FIGS. 3-7 have template rules that specify which track circuits are unidirectional or bi-directional, which track circuits have active islands, which islands are connected to multiple track circuits, which track circuits are remote and DAX to the crossing, which track circuits are remote and DAX away from the crossing, and which track circuits are logically ANDed together to control the crossing. Each template has a specific set of template defaults. These defaults determine the above template rules, in addition to which track circuits are enabled (turned on) by default. Bamfield at [0031].
The field 150 of the display screen 142 includes a graphical display of a template, which includes “track circuits.”
The “track circuits” are analogous to “objects for controlling a grade crossing.”
receive user input comprising a
This OCE tool also allows the designer to turn track circuits on or off, and to program in the exact order any of the available train detection, crossing control or recorder parameters. Once the designer has completed the design, the OCE tool may be used to generate a minimum program steps report. This report lists the changes or exceptions to the template defaults of the selected template. Bamfield at [0036].
The designer turning track circuits on or off is analogous to “user input” that includes selecting an object.
generate, on the display, a visual representation of a track plan using the selected objects, and
Once template programming has been completed, default values are entered for all programmable parameters. The user will enter new values for any parameters that differ from the default parameters predefined by the selected template. That is, the templates predefine or characterize the many parameters that would otherwise need to be manually entered into the controller 40. For example, in the screen 160 in FIG. 9 indicates that GCP programming for the approach circuits 26 and 27 in FIG. 1 has been selected for track 1 in field 161. Bamfield at [0040].
FIG. 9 illustrates a visual representation of parameters for objects that have been selected and set by the user.
store the track plan in the storage device, wherein the track plan includes default programming parameters for configuring a grade crossing controller, and wherein the track plan is configured to be uploaded to and program the grade crossing controller to control traffic warning devices at the highway-rail grade crossing.
Once the designer has completed the design, the OCE tool may be used to generate a minimum program steps report. This report lists the changes or exceptions to the template defaults of the selected template. The report lists the MCF used, the template chosen and the exceptions, which provides complete information in order to program a controller 40, and is typically included as part of the site specific plans. Bamfield at [0036].
The minimum program steps reports are text files that can be easily compared or incorporated into CAD systems. Bamfield at [0042].
The “text files” are analogous to “storing the track plan” and can be stored for incorporation into a CAD system.
The “template chosen” is analogous to the “default programming parameters.”
The “complete information in order to program the controller” is analogous to “configured to be uploaded to and program the grade crossing controller.”
Bamfield does not appear to disclose user input comprising a drag-and-drop selection of objects. Ward, which is analogous art, discloses user input comprising a drag-and-drop selection of objects:
From the toolbox, items may be added to the handler definition by drag-and-drop, by double-click or by menu items. Drag-and-drop operations allow the item to be placed wherever desired within the currently defined steps, and the insertion point of the item may be visually represented. Ward at col. 9, lines 1-5.
Ward is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to configuring control of components utilizing a drag-and-drop interface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary sill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize an interface as disclosed in Ward, with drag-and-drop capabilities, to generate a track plan for a grade crossing controller that allows a user to select a visual object and drag the object to its desired location. Motivation to combine includes improved user experience in generating a track plan by reducing time required to design a track plan, thus reducing computing resources required to ultimately configure a grade crossing controller.
Claim 2
Bamfield discloses:
wherein each object includes default programming parameters for a grade crossing controller.
Each template has a specific set of template defaults. These defaults determine the above template rules, in addition to which track circuits are enabled (turned on) by default. Bamfield at [0031].
Claim 3
Bamfield discloses:
wherein the identifications of the plurality of objects comprise visual representations.
A graphic representation or depiction of the selected template may appear in another field 150 of screen 142 so that the user can visually identify or confirm the selected template. Bamfield at [0039].
Claim 7
Bamfield discloses:
wherein the plurality of objects comprises track lines, track circuits, termination shunts, insulated joints.
In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, sets of predefined templates are provided for easily selecting typical crossing designs, specifying exceptions to those typical designs…These sets of pre-defined crossing application designs or templates are shown in FIGS. 3-7. With reference to FIGS. 3 and 4A, these templates use the following conventions and symbols: (1) horizontal lines 50 (e.g., template 60) represent the railroad tracks (one line represents the two physical rails), (2) a vertical line with inverted arrows on either end 51 represents the road, (3) a small vertical line 52 (e.g., template 68) on the track represents an insulated joint in the railroad tracks, (4) switches 53 (e.g., template 78) are indicated as converging or diverging lines, (5) a triangle symbol 54 (e.g., template 68) with a number inside represents a unidirectional track circuit, (6) a diamond symbol 55 (e.g., template 60) with a number inside represents a bi-directional track circuit, (7) an asterisk 56 (e.g., template 60) indicates that the crossing island circuit is associated with track circuit the asterisk is next to, (8) the direction of the unidirectional track circuit is shown by the orientation of the triangle (the apex of the triangle points in the direction of the approaching train), (9) the dashed line 57 (e.g., template 60) around the track circuits represents the scope of the template, with all template designs being capable of being implemented within one physical controller 40, (10) unidirectional track circuits that are not immediately adjacent to the crossing are termed remotes. Bamfield at [0030].
Claim 9
Bamfield discloses:
wherein the selected objects and/or the visual representation of the track plan are manually configurable.
The parameters that may need to be manually entered are also listed in the minimum program steps report. When programming on the controller 40 has been completed, the user may verify that the programming parameters have been entered correctly by verifying the office configuration check number. Bamfield at [0040].
Claims 11-13
Claims 11-13 disclose steps that are substantially the same as the steps recited in claims 1-3 as being executed by the processor recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 1-3 and based on the same prior art, claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claim 14
Bamfield discloses:
programming a grade crossing controller based on the visual representation of the track plan, utilizing the default programming parameters of the selected objects.
This report lists the changes or exceptions to the template defaults of the selected template. The report lists the MCF used, the template chosen and the exceptions, which provides complete information in order to program a controller 40, and is typically included as part of the site specific plans. Bamfield at [0036].
Claim 15
Bamfield discloses:
storing the visual representation of the track plan in the grade crossing controller.
The method of designing a track circuit application for a highway-rail grade crossing warning system in accordance with claim 16, said method comprising the additional step of: storing the set of default programming parameters in the controller to reduce the number of remaining program steps. Bamfield at claim 18.
Claim 16
Bamfield discloses:
displaying the visual representation of the track plan on a display of the grade crossing controller.
A graphic representation or depiction of the selected template may appear in another field 150 of screen 142 so that the user can visually identify or confirm the selected template. Touching of the update button 151 on screen 142 will change any previously selected template to the newly selected template. If the template is changed, all site specific parameters must be reprogrammed. Bamfield at [0039].
Claim 17
Bamfield discloses:
transmitting the visual representation of the track plan to a remote storage device, wherein the track plan is retrievable from the remote storage device via another device or application.
Preferably, housing 28 is equipped with an antenna 29 to permit reception of signals and to transmit signals, such as between controller 40 and a railroad operations center (not shown). Bamfield at col. 4, lines 18-21.
Claim 18
Bamfield discloses:
wherein the remote storage device is located at a remote operations control center.
Preferably, housing 28 is equipped with an antenna 29 to permit reception of signals and to transmit signals, such as between controller 40 and a railroad operations center (not shown). Bamfield at [0026].
Claim 19
Bamfield discloses:
wherein the track plan is retrievable from the remote storage device via a web application or a mobile application.
A portion of the set of templates may define a related set of track circuit applications, with all track circuits at the grade crossing; a related set of track circuits, with track circuit applications mixed between the grade crossing and remote locations, and with all remote locations communicating toward the subject grade crossing; a related set of track circuits, with track circuits mixed between the subject grade crossing and remote locations, and with remote locations communicating in opposite directions; at least one track circuit, with all track circuits being remote locations, and with all remote locations communicating in the same direction; and/or at least one track circuit, with all track circuits being remote locations, and with all remote locations communicating in opposite directions. Bamfield at [0013].
Claim 20
Bamfield discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by a computer perform a method for creating a visual representation of a track plan as claimed in claim 11.
The Office Configuration Editor (OCE) tool runs under the Microsoft Windows operating system, and allows designers to select the appropriate templates without having to be connected in the field with a physical controller 40. Bamfield at [0036].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view Connelly, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,113,847, hereinafter “Connelly”).
Claim 4
Bamfield does not appear to disclose:
wherein the identifications of the plurality of objects comprise predefined tiles with visual representations.
Connelly, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein the identifications of the plurality of objects comprise predefined tiles with visual representations.
Throughout the design, construction and operation of infrastructure (e.g., buildings, factories, roads, railways, bridges, electrical and communications networks, etc.) it is often desirable to model the infrastructure using infrastructure modeling applications. Connelly at col. 1, lines 23-27.
In traditional model “publishing,” the cloud computing devices may generate a set of all possible tiles (e.g., two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimension (3D) tiles) that represent portions of the infrastructure model at different LODs. Such tile generation may involve converting geometry of the infrastructure model to a form that can be readily displayed on a display screen of a client device. When needed, tiles may be served to client devices, which simply read the supplied tiles and render their contents. Connelly at col. 1, lines 51-59.
Connelly is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to modeling infrastructure using graphical tiles. See Connelly at col. 1, lines 23-27. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the graphical representations of track circuits disclosed by Bamfield with the tiles disclosed in Connelly. Motivation to do so includes improving the user experience by improving ease of arranging and visualizing controllers and other objects in the infrastructure, thus reducing resources required to make changes to the railroad crossing configuration.
Claim 5
Bamfield discloses:
wherein the [objects]
This OCE tool also allows the designer to turn track circuits on or off, and to program in the exact order any of the available train detection, crossing control or recorder parameters. Bamfield at [0036].
Connelly discloses:
predefined tiles
The above described infrastructure modeling software architecture 100 and schemas may be used in infrastructure model display techniques that involve frontend-driven, incremental HLOD sub-tree creation and dynamic generation of tiles. An infrastructure modeling frontend module (e.g., a iModel.js Frontend module) 128 of a frontend application 120, 122 incrementally creates a local HLOD sub-tree (e.g., an oct-tree, quad-tree, or another type of tree having nodes corresponding to tiles) based on initial metadata provided without tile contents, and refined based on metadata provided with tile contents from an infrastructure modeling backend module (e.g., a iModel.js Backend module) of a backend application 134 of the backend application 130, 132. Connelly at col. 7, lines 6-19.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bamfield in view of Connelly and Sharkey, et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No 2007/0084974, hereinafter “Sharkey”).
Claim 6
Sharkey discloses:
wherein the plurality of objects comprises grade crossing device(s) of the grade crossing and/or remote devices for controlling the grade crossing.
In highway railroad grade crossing warning systems that utilize CWT, frequently the CWT track circuit at the crossing cannot extend a sufficient distance due to other signal requirements in the approach to the crossing circuit. When this situation is encountered, it is necessary for a remote CWT device to predict the arrival of the train at the distant crossing. Sharkey at [0003].
Sharkey is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to control of remote devices at railroad crossings. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the remote devices as disclosed by Sharkey in the objects displayed as disclosed in Bamfield. Motivation to combine includes allowing a user to program additional objects remotely, thus reducing the time and expense of traveling to the controllers to change commands.
Claim 8
Connelly discloses:
Such tile generation may involve converting geometry of the infrastructure model to a form that can be readily displayed on a display screen of a client device. When needed, tiles may be served to client devices, which simply read the supplied tiles and render their contents. Connelly at col. 1, lines 55-59.
Sharkey discloses:
wherein the remote devices relate to devices installed in an environment of the grade crossing,
In highway railroad grade crossing warning systems that utilize CWT, frequently the CWT track circuit at the crossing cannot extend a sufficient distance due to other signal requirements in the approach to the crossing circuit. When this situation is encountered, it is necessary for a remote CWT device to predict the arrival of the train at the distant crossing. Sharkey at [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Corbo, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0053598
Rempel, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0145791
Zavatone, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0173567
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 The limitation is an intended use of the track plan and does not impose meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim, thus is an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Prosecution Insights