DETAILED ACTION
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 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 recites at least one step or instruction for detecting passing a point on the tracks by both the front and back of the train, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. This system is simply monitoring the position of the train with respect to a mark. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
a system for managing operations of a train relative to a fouling mark, the system comprising:
one or more sources; a Head-of-Train device mounted at a front end of the train, comprising a first processor, a first memory, and a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver that enables the Head-of-Train device to receive GNSS data from a plurality of GNSS satellites and determine a GNSS location of the Head-of-Train device using the GNSS data and
an End-of-Train device mounted at a rear-end of the train comprising a second processor, a second memory, and a second Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver that enables the End-of-Train device to receive GNSS data from a plurality of GNSS satellites, wherein the End-of-Train device is communicatively coupled to the Head-of-Train device over a radio frequency link that enables the End-of-Train device to transmit the GNSS location of the End-of-Train device to the Head-of-Train device; and
wherein the first processor of the head of train device is configured to:
detect the fouling mark based on inputs from the one or more sources; receive, over the radio frequency link, a real-time GNSS location of the end of train device from the end of train device
dynamically determined whether the train clears the fouling mark, upon detecting the fouling mark, by comparing a GNSS location of the fouling mark and the real-time GNSS location of the End-of-Train Device received over the radio frequency link;
Identify one or more actions to be performed using a predefined logic, before the train clears the fouling mark, wherein the one or more actions includes continuously broadcasting while the train has not cleared the fouling mark, a warning message for cautioning one or more trailing trains that are scheduled to cross the fouling mark that clearing of the fouling mark by the train is incomplete, wherein the warning message comprises the real time (GNSS) location of the End-of-Train device, device, wherein the warning message causes the one or more trailing trains to avoid the GNSS location of the End-of-Train device, and-controlling a driver-machine interface of the train to render a graphical representation on the driver-machine interface of the train indicating a position of the train relative to the fouling mark so that the train continues movement until the fouling mark is cleared; and transmitting a clear message to the one or more trailing trains when the train clears the fouling mark;; and
Execute one or more machine-readable instructions for performing the one or more actions identified.
Judging the passing of a fouling mark by a back and front end of the train is an observation and a judgment which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG; Communicating this judgement involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG); Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 11, 21 (and their respective dependent Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, 21), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: The train, and sensors and a device that can determine. as recited in independent Claim 1, 11, 21 and its dependent claims; and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 11, 21 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, 21 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., _processor and memory and receivers which is claimed as a determiner device). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, 21 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 11, 21 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a train, a determining device, a GNSS receivers, memory, processor and a sensor.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed trains and computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, ¶29 discusses the GNSS receivers in generic ways to rely on conventional understanding of the structure. ¶26 discloses the computers in generic ways to rely on conventional understanding of the structure.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term determining device is performed by a computer with memory and a processor as per paragraphs 26-27 is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the determining device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses, systems and methods of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 11, 21 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments to the claims require: “device, wherein the warning message causes the one or more trailing trains to avoid the GNSS location of the End-of-Train device” (emphasis added). The specification states only that the broadcast will inform drivers of the possible collision point but does not “cause” the trains or the drivers of those trains to do anything in response to the signal.
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 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 and 12 require “a GNSS location” to be the “one or more sources” claimed in the independent claim. This leads to indefiniteness as to whether an additional GNSS system is required in claim 1 which separately claims “one or more sources” and “a GNSS receiver”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tubergen (U.S. Pat. No. 10,782,419).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tubergen discloses a system for managing operations of a train relative to a fouling mark, the system comprising:
one or more sources; a Head-of-Train device mounted at a front end of the train, comprising a first processor, a first memory, and a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver that enables the Head-of-Train device to receive GNSS data from a plurality of GNSS satellites and determine a GNSS location of the Head-of-Train device using the GNSS data (col. 5, lines 21-30 and col. 6, lines 7-10) and
an End-of-Train device mounted at a rear-end of the train comprising a second processor, a second memory, and a second Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver that enables the End-of-Train device to receive GNSS data from a plurality of GNSS satellites, wherein the End-of-Train device is communicatively coupled to the Head-of-Train device over a radio frequency link that enables the End-of-Train device to transmit the GNSS location of the End-of-Train device to the Head-of-Train device (fig. 2 shows both front and end of train having computers with GPS receivers and communicating with wireless transceivers); and
wherein the first processor of the head of train device is configured to:
detect the fouling mark (col. 6, line 59 – col. 7, line 27) based on inputs from the one or more sources; receive, over the radio frequency link, a real-time GNSS location of the end of train device from the end of train device
dynamically determined whether the train clears the fouling mark, upon detecting the fouling mark, by comparing a GNSS location of the fouling mark and the real-time GNSS location of the End-of-Train Device received over the radio frequency link (col. 6, line 59- col. 7, line 10);
Identify one or more actions to be performed using a predefined logic, before the train clears the fouling mark (fig. 4 66), wherein the one or more actions includes continuously broadcasting while the train has not cleared the fouling mark (col. 7, lines 20-25 discloses continuous comparison of the GPS data of the EOT and Col. 8, lines 32-37 discloses that the data can be compared at the Head of train which would require continuous transmission.), a warning message for cautioning one or more trailing trains that are scheduled to cross the fouling mark that clearing of the fouling mark by the train is incomplete, wherein the warning message comprises the real time (GNSS) location of the End-of-Train device, device, wherein the warning message causes (col. 2, lines 33-42 discusses how a communication to allow travel is sent) the one or more trailing trains to avoid the GNSS location of the End-of-Train device, and-controlling a driver-machine interface of the train to render a graphical representation on the driver-machine interface of the train indicating a position of the train (col. 2, lines 25-27) relative to the fouling mark so that the train continues movement until the fouling mark is cleared; and transmitting a clear message to the one or more trailing trains when the train clears the fouling mark; (col. 7, line 4-12 discloses outputting the front of train passing which indicates incompleteness until the second signal is sent along with GPS data. Due to the wireless nature of communication from one end of the train to another disclosed in col. 6, lines 14-16 this would allow for the outputting of a signal which can be picked up by any train with the appropriate hardware. Further col. 8, lines 19-31 discloses transmitting to a second train.); and
Execute one or more machine-readable instructions for performing the one or more actions identified (68).
Regarding claim 2 and 12 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the one or more sources comprise at least one of a sensing unit (addressed above) mounted on the train, a wayside unit (sensing unit option addressed) and a cloud server (sensing unit option addressed), and wherein the inputs from the one or more sources comprises at least one of a GNSS location of the fouling mark and a distance-to-the-fouling mark (62), and wherein the distance-to-the-fouling mark is a distance between the train and the fouling mark when the train is approaching the fouling mark.
Regarding claim 4 and 14 which depends from claim 2 and 12 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the Head-of-Train device is configured to dynamically determine whether the train clears the fouling mark based on a confirmation message received from the cloud server, wherein the confirmation message indicates that the End-of-Train device has crossed the fouling mark (sensing unit option addressed).
Regarding claim 6 and 16 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the Head-of-Train device is configured to dynamically determine whether the train clears the fouling mark by: dynamically computing a stopping distance for the train based on a distance travelled by the train in real-time after the Head-of-Train device crosses the fouling mark, wherein the train successfully clears the fouling mark when the stopping distance reduces to zero (col. 6, lines 32-47).
Regarding claim 7 and 17 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the one or more actions comprises: generating a warning, on the driver machine interface of the train if the train is stopped before all the wheels have crossed the fouling mark (col. 2, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 8 and 18 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the one or more actions comprises: broadcasting a status message indicating that clearing of the fouling mark by the train is incomplete, to one or more apparatus associated with a railway signaler (col. 9, lines 5-14, in conjunction with col. 10, lines 33-34 allowing this to be on the internet this can be communicated by the process of fig. 4 still running).
Regarding claim 9 and 19 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the one or more actions comprises: transmitting a status message, to a cloud server (col. 10, lines 33-34), indicating that clearing of the fouling mark by the train is incomplete (the signal is due to the process of fig. 4 still running), wherein the status message enables the cloud server to further transmit a notification, to trailing trains, indicating that clearing of the fouling mark by the train is incomplete (the internet is enabled to share).
Regarding claim 10 and 20 which depends from claim 2 and 12 respectively, Tubergen discloses wherein the Head-of-Train device is further configured to: transmit an update message indicative of the GNSS location of the fouling mark to the cloud server, wherein the cloud server updates an artificial intelligence model based on the GNSS location of the fouling mark for enabling subsequent identification of the fouling mark by at least one of the cloud server and the Head-of-Train device (sensing unit option addressed).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 12, Tubergen discloses wherein the Head-of-Train device is configured to dynamically determine whether the train clears the fouling mark by: dynamically computing a stopping point when the fouling mark is detected ahead of the train, based on the distance-to-the-fouling mark and a length of the train, wherein the stopping point is a location that the Head-of-Train device must reach for the train to successfully clear the fouling mark; and comparing the stopping point to a real-time GNSS location of the Head-of-Train device to determine if the train has cleared the fouling mark (col. 6, lines 32-47).
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubergen (U.S. Pat. No. 10,782,419).
Regarding claim 21, Tubergen discloses a system for managing operations of a train relative to a fouling mark, the system comprising:
one or more sources; an End-of-Train device mounted at a rear-end of the train; and a Head-of-Train device mounted at a front-end of the train, communicatively coupled to the End- of-train device and the one or more sources (col. 5, lines 21-30 and col. 6, lines 7-10), wherein the Head-of-Train device is configured to:
- detect the fouling mark based on inputs from the one or more sources (col. 6, line 59 – col. 7, line 27);
- dynamically determine whether the train clears the fouling mark, upon detecting the fouling mark (col. 6, line 59- col. 7, line 10) by dynamically computing a stopping point when the fouling mark is detected ahead of the train, based on a distance-to-the-fouling mark and a length of the train, wherein the stopping point is a location that the Head-of-Train device must reach for the train to successfully clear the fouling mark (col. 7, lines 7-12 discloses that two points are compared because once within a certain amount the train has traveled sufficiently far to stop and then col. 7, lines 17-20 discloses any additional distance can be added in order to clear certain points including the marker); and
comparing the stopping point to a real-time GNSS location of the Head-of-Train device to determine if the train has cleared the fouling mark- identify one or more actions to be performed using a predefined logic, before the train clears the fouling mark wherein the one or more actions includes transmitting a message that clearing of the fouling mark by the train is incomplete as a warning to trailing trains (This does not state that the message is continuous only that at least one signal is sent. col. 7, line 4 discloses outputting the front of train passing which indicates incompleteness until the second signal is sent. Due to the wireless nature of communication from one end of the train to another disclosed in col. 6, lines 14-16 this would allow for the outputting of a signal); and - execute one or more machine-readable instructions for performing the one or more actions identified (col. 10, lines 33-34 discloses using the internet to share the location and so the clearing of the mark).
Where the reference fails to calculate a stopping point for the front of the train and then compare front of the train GPS data to the calculated spot it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified it in this way because that is simply creating a new “marker” in which GPS data is being compared to. The reference finds GPS data when next to the marker that the back of the train needs to match, this amendment is simply adding the “train length” distance to the marker and comparing the front of the train to the marker plus “train length” distance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 13 to 17 that the claims are not drawn to the abstract but real-world improvements on unconventional devices. Where communicating that a portion of the track is occupied does provide real world benefit if the communication is received and acted upon by stopping an on coming train this only works under the two conditions that the communication is received and acted upon. Otherwise, the signals communicating this information, if lost, produce no difference or improvement. If received but in a way that does not appropriately communicate the needed action and so no action is taken then there is also no benefit or improvement. The claims are not drawn towards the other trains and their ability to receive the communication or requiring the trains to act on the communication. Computers processing data and communicating data to other computers and even displaying that information is seen as an abstract concept. As to the structure of the claims the specification does not go into sufficient detail to describe these unconventional devices, instead relying on what is well known in the art and building on top of these conventional devices (trains, GPS devices, computers, radio transmitters) in order to create a specific use for these devices through programming. That programming is an abstract idea that is not improving the technology area itself since the results are uncertain. Where it is argued that it is not the individual devices but the combination that is unconventional the specification does not sufficiently detail how these devices are combined except in generic language of putting them together to have written support for the combination being unconventional. As a result these claims are only requiring abstract ideas on conventional structures.
Applicant argues on pages 19-20 that the cited reference does not communicate real time GPS data or that the signal is continuous. The reference in col. 7, line 4-12 discloses creating the notification and that this notification can include GPS data and in lines 20-25 the data is continuously being compared until the GPS data states the train is past the mark. As addressed above the communication can be continuous as disclosed in col. 7, lines 20-25 and col. 8, lines 32-37.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747