DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 March, 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the eligibility of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s characterization of step (B)(ii)-(v) as “evaluating and processing data” that recite “either mental or mathematical processes” is incorrect. Applicant argues that step (B) recites a specific technical process that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues that steps (D)-(I) describe a specific branching structure which, when applied to numerous conditions that may exist along a linear asset, would describe a process which could not practically be performed by a person in their mind.
Applicant again argues that the branching decision algorithm of steps (E)-(I) and the data alignment process of step (B) describe improvements to how a computer processes misaligned survey data and organizes overlapping conditions into a display. Applicant asserts that this represents a technological solution to a technological problem, and that the additional limitations should be considered with the rest of the claim.
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Step (B)(ii)-(v) describe analyzing “measurement units” in “survey channels”, identifying measurements, creating “tie-down points” and “stretching or shrinking data”. Notably, broad language is used. A person, either mentally or applying mathematical formulas, could analyze data in survey channels, find measurements, create a “tie-down” point, and stretch/shrink the other data. While the above may not be practical for a person to do if the amount of data to analyze and stretch/shrink is too great, nothing in the claim language specifies how much data is operated on. Even if the amount of data were too great for a person to operate on mentally, however, the above limitations could still be interpreted as applying a computer to perform mental or mathematical processes. This would be a reasonable argument because of the generality of the claim language used.
The examiner considers the core issue affecting eligibility to be the generality of claim language. When considered as a whole, the claims describe an invention which displays “conditions” of a “linear asset,” without any other limitations clearly limiting the scope of these terms. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, these words could encompass a great deal of things. A vehicle road, bicycle path, railroad, pipeline, overhead line, length of rope, mining shaft, cell tower, certain manufactured goods, etc. could all be interpreted as a “linear asset”. Furthermore, a “condition” of a “linear asset” could represent any number of characterizations: good/bad, high traffic/low traffic, long/short, hot/cold, broken/fixed, fortified/unfortified, painted/unpainted, inspected/uninspected, rough/smooth, bent/straight, rich/poor (in some property such as ore), high/low, overbaked/underbaked, etc.
The specification does not enforce a definition of the terms “linear asset” or its “conditions” (indeed, ¶23 recites that “the techniques disclosed herein may be used in connection with any kind of linear asset, whether or not such a linear asset is designed to, or actually does, serve as a path of travel”). The specification clearly provides examples of linear assets such as tracks, tunnels, powerlines, and roadways (see ¶1), but this does require an examiner to limit claim interpretation to such examples (see MPEP § 2111). In fact, the specification supports a broad interpretation of the “linear asset” and its “conditions”.
This results in eligibility issues. When the steps implemented by the claim language describe analysis, manipulation, and logical algorithms (all mental or mathematical processes) applied to generic data resulting in a display of unspecified conditions of said generic data, it follows that the additional elements are not particular enough to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Neither can it be said that the claim language describes a particular technological solution to a particular technological issue; the problem of displaying conditions of linear assets is not particular at all, nor is it technological.
See 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
Applicant asserts that the examiner did not address the argument that none of the cited references teaches or suggests the branching decision algorithm. Applicant points out that the examiner agreed that Ebersohn separates data into rows by time in Fig. 10, not by the branching decision process, and that Apuy Fig. 6I was not relied upon for row separation but for showing conditions as line segments with visual characteristics along a single line. Applicant argues that the examiner’s rationale that ambiguity might be avoided by separating linear segments into rows addresses only the concept of using rows but not the specific if/then/else structure.
Applicant also argues that Khosravi’s discussion of GPS and RFID tags as such would not meet the claim language of creating tie-down points at identified measurements, because the identified measurements are within the survey channels and the GPS or RFID tags would be external reference points.
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. While it is true that none of the prior art describes the branching decision algorithm, the examiner is not limited solely to what is disclosed by the prior art:
“Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be “so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Id. In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap” (MPEP 2141 § III)
The examiner used Ebersohn in view of Khosravi to teach the limitations (A)-(D) and (J)-(K). For the branching decision algorithm, the argument remains as follows. Pickard displays a train track and its conditions on a map, which would have been useful to help a user geolocate a portion of track on the user interface. Incorporating this teaching leads to the question of how conditions may be represented on the map. Apuy depicts traffic conditions as linear segments with visual characteristics along a road; it would have been obvious to also depict conditions as linear segments along (or just offset from, as later argued) a track as a visually intuitive way to view and locate conditions. In Ebersohn, different conditions can exist along the same, overlapping, or proximate portions of track; how can the linear segment method be used while avoiding ambiguities? Ebersohn discloses linear segments representing conditions along a track which have overlapping coordinates, but are still distinguishable because they are separated into rows. Thus, it would have been obvious to distinguish overlapping linear segments by separating them into different rows. However, this is not always necessary; if linear segments do not overlap, they need not be placed in separate rows. Moreover, sometimes conditions that are overlapping could be placed in the same row without confusing a user, such as when changing traffic severity is depicted along a same linear segment in Apuy. The above arguments show that the branching decision algorithm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner believes that the above argument is sufficient to demonstrate obviousness. However, the examiner also believes that one could rely less on prior art and more on the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to display conditions along a track as linear segments following the track because the linear segments quickly communicate what kind of condition there is and where the condition is located. This form of depicting conditions is ubiquitous in vehicle navigation, and is therefore considered common knowledge. If two conditions have non-overlapping coordinates, one could naturally place them along the same “row” since there is no ambiguity, but if they have overlapping coordinates then it would be sensible to apply some test to determine if they should be placed on the same row or on different rows. Overlapping conditions could be placed on the same row, for example if the conditions are sufficiently similar in nature that it is unnecessary to completely separate them, or if they are of equal importance (Distinguishing by row in order of importance would have been obvious; it is a typical way of depicting rankings. Placing things with equal importance at an equal height is also common. These concepts are considered common knowledge.). The above is encompassed by the branching decision algorithm, therefore the branching decision algorithm would have been obvious.
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument regarding the application of Khosravi to teach tie-down points. In light of this, the examiner presents new arguments.
See 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “(H)” should be replaced with “(I)”
In claims 11 and 12, “(I)” should be replaced with “(J)”
In claim 13, “(J)” should be replaced with “(K)”
In claim 14, “a first portion of the linear asset” should be replaced with “the first portion of the linear asset”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A, Prong One, the judicial exceptions are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A method for displaying a plurality of conditions of a linear asset, the method performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium,
the method comprising:
(A) generating, on a display device, linear asset visual output representing the linear asset;
(B) generating aligned data channels by:
(i) obtaining survey channels comprising measurement units from multiple traversals of the linear asset;
(ii) analyzing the measurement units in the survey channels;
(iii) identifying measurements in the survey channels;
(iv) creating tie-down points at the identified measurements; and
(v) stretching or shrinking data between consecutive tie-down points;
(C) identifying, from the aligned data channels, first condition data representing a first condition within the plurality of conditions, wherein the first condition is assigned to a first row;
(D) identifying, from the aligned data channels, second condition data representing a second condition within the plurality of conditions;
(E) determining whether linear coordinates of the first condition overlap with linear coordinates of the second condition;
(F) in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do not overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, assigning the second condition to the first row;
(G) in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy a grouping criterion relative to each other; and
(H) in response to determining that the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other, assigning the second condition to the first row;
(I) in response to determining that the first condition and the second condition do not satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other, assigning the second condition to a second row;
(J) generating, on the display device, first condition output representing the first condition in its assigned row; and
(K) generating on the display device, second condition output representing the second condition in its assigned row.
Step (B)(ii)-(v) describes evaluating and processing data, step (C) describes evaluating data and making an assignment for a first condition, while steps (D)-(I) recite evaluating data and implementing an algorithm for making an assignment for a second condition. These steps recite either mental or mathematical processes depending on the complexity of each step.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements, none of which integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, are:
Steps (A) and (J)-(K) recite generating a visual output on a display device. Outputting data in this way is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step (B)(i) describes obtaining measured data of a linear asset, which is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
A general-purpose computer is implicitly recited by stating that the method of claim 1 is “performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium.” In this capacity, the computer is invoked as a general tool to perform the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
At Step 2B, when considered as a whole, claim 1 recites processing measurement data of a “linear asset,” then displaying visuals of the linear asset and “conditions of [the] linear asset,” where a comparison is implemented to determine whether or not the conditions should be displayed on the same row. From the claim language, it is not clear what the context is; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “linear asset” could be interpreted in many ways to fit various contexts. The display is not applied to effect a real-world transformation, nor does the display represent a significant improvement to a technological field. For these reasons, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 1 save that claim 16 describes a system comprising the general-purpose computer, while claim 1 is a method claim. The analysis of claim 1 applies to claim 16, therefore claim 16 is also ineligible.
Claims 2-3 recite that the output comprises line segments, which does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1. Claims 2-3 are therefore ineligible.
Claims 4 and 6-7 recite further judicial exceptions but do not significantly change the analysis of claim 1. Claims 4 and 6-7 are therefore ineligible.
Claim 5 recites that the outputs comprise a plurality of line segments. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1. Claim 5 is therefore ineligible.
Claims 8-10 recite that the first and second condition data have parameter values and that the output comprises visual characteristics depending on the parameter values. These claims do not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore they are also ineligible.
Claims 11 and 13 recite displaying the first and second condition outputs, respectively, near the linear asset visual output. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore claims 11 and 13 are ineligible.
Claim 12 recites displaying the first condition asset parallel to the linear asset visual output. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore claim 12 is ineligible.
Claims 14-15 recite generating the first and second condition outputs, respectively, to have a curvature that matches the linear asset visual output. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore claims 14-15 are ineligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersöhn (US 5978717 A; hereinafter “Ebersohn”) in view of Khosravi (“Reducing the positional errors of railway track geometry measurements using alignment methods: A comparative case study”), Pickard (US 20230082722 A1) and Apuy (US 20220391074 A1).
(Note that Pickard is a continuation of application No. 17/471995, filed on Sep. 10, 2021, which discloses all features of the patent application publication relied upon in the rejection below)
Regarding claim 1, Ebersohn discloses a method for displaying a plurality of conditions of a linear asset (Abstract: the invention provides a means for visualizing and inter-relating sets of track data; Fig. 2 depicts a sample user interface; Fig. 9 depicts multiple rail conditions along a track), the method performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (Title: the invention is a computer system implemented on a computer), the method comprising:
generating, on a display device, linear asset visual output representing the linear asset (Fig. 6, inventory window of a selected length of track);
identifying first condition data representing a first condition within the plurality of conditions, wherein the first condition is assigned to a first location (Fig. 9 and Column 8, lines 10-20: multiple rail defects are represented along a track, where the x-axis represents defect location along a track and the y-axis represents the date of detection; let one or more of the conditions represent the first condition);
identifying second condition data representing a second condition within the plurality of conditions (Fig. 9, let one or more other conditions not associated with the first condition represent the second condition);
generating, on the display device, first condition output representing the first condition in its assigned location (Fig. 9, the letter codes represent first and second condition outputs); and
generating on the display device, second condition output representing the second condition in its assigned location (Fig. 9, the letter codes represent first and second condition outputs).
Ebersohn does not explicitly disclose step (B), nor that the first and second conditions are assigned to rows, nor steps (E)-(I).
Khosravi teaches that position measurements of railroad tracks may have errors (Abstract). Many factors can contribute to these errors, such as irregularities in track geometry, wheel slippage, wheel sliding, and wheel wear (see Fig. 3). Because of this, track position data over multiple runs may need to be aligned (see Fig. 1). One method of aligning track data, called correlation optimized warping (COW), divides a dataset into
N
s
e
g
segments bounded by nodes which are data points of the segments (pg. 6, Column 2, under Section 3.1.4). Each segment is stretched or compressed with respect to a reference segment (see also Fig. 5 on pg. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khosravi with the invention of Ebersohn by causing the method to comprise step (B) of generating aligned data channels by:
(i) obtaining survey channels comprising measurement units from multiple traversals of the linear asset;
(ii) analyzing the measurement units in the survey channels;
(iii) identifying measurements in the survey channels;
(iv) creating tie-down points (nodes) at the identified measurements; and
(v) stretching or shrinking data between consecutive tie-down points, then identifying the first and second condition data from the aligned data channels.
Doing so would enable one to correct for position errors in track measurement data using a known method.
Ebersohn in view of Khosravi does not explicitly teach that the first and second conditions are assigned to rows, nor steps (E)-(I).
Pickard discloses a system and method for continuous welded rail risk modeling along a track (Abstract). As part of the invention, Pickard discloses a user interface which displays a train track on a map, as well as visuals of scored areas representing risk for a particular location (Fig. 10B, track 1004 and scored areas 1008; ¶238).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pickard with the invention of Ebersohn by displaying the linear asset visual output on a map representing a surrounding region in order to provide a user with visual context and help a user geolocate a displayed portion of track.
Apuy discloses a method for depicting navigation routes for a vehicle including conditions along a route (Abstract; ¶217). As part of this invention, Apuy discloses displaying conditions such as traffic along a route, which are represented by linear segments depicting various values of a condition such as a traffic condition (Fig. 6I and ¶217, where light traffic 608h, moderate traffic 608i, and heavy traffic 608j may be depicted with different colors, patterns, translucencies, sizes to visually distinguish the portions).
Ebersohn discloses a maintenance window where the x-axis depicts distance along a track and the y-axis depicts time (Fig. 10; Column 8, lines 20-30). Track maintenance activities are depicted as lines such as line 101, where the length represents the region along the track where the maintenance was performed (Column 8, lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Apuy with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard by representing the condition outputs as line segments which follow a track along the map. Doing so would provide a clear way to represent track condition data while a user views the map. Having done so, it would have been obvious to replace the letter code method of Ebersohn for conveying condition information with line feature method of Apuy, providing line segment features such as color, pattern, translucence, and size.
When implementing the method above, multiple conditions may exist along the same length of track or may be proximate to each other along the track (see Fig. 9 of Ebersohn, noting that the two leftmost conditions represent lengths of track which are close and may be overlapping). Depicting an arbitrary number of condition outputs for a small portion of track would be difficult if the line segments were restricted to lie along the track on the map. To easily display an arbitrary number of condition outputs, even if they correspond to a small portion of track, it would have been obvious to cause the line segments to be offset from the track so that they run parallel to and along the track, and to enable the line segments to be displayed in separate rows running parallel to each other (see Fig. 10 of Ebersohn, noting that different maintenance activities addressing overlapping portions of track are made distinguishable by separating the line segments vertically into rows). Again, having determined that line segments may be displayed in separate rows along a track, it would have been obvious to implement a criterion for determining whether the line segments should be depicted on separate rows or on the same row (such as when the condition data correspond to sufficiently distant portions of track; also see Apuy Fig. 6I, where the traffic conditions 608h-j represent similar condition types in proximate regions, and so are represented as contiguous line segments along a single path but have distinguishable patterns).
With the above in mind, it would have been obvious for the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy to assign the first condition to a first row, and then to implement the following steps:
determining whether linear coordinates of the first condition overlap with linear coordinates of the second condition;
in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do not overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, assigning the second condition to the first row;
in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy a grouping criterion relative to each other;
in response [to] determining that the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other, assigning the second condition to the first row; and
in response to determining that the first condition and the second condition do not satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other assigning the second condition to a second row.
Applying the grouping criterion to overlapping conditions, where overlapping conditions satisfying the grouping criterion are assigned to the same row, would have been obvious because some conditions share similarities which would make grouping them as contiguous line segments on a single row intuitive (such as in Fig. 6I of Apuy, where differing traffic conditions are depicted on a single line; this makes sense because the conditions differ in priority but not in quality).
Finally, for continuity with the arguments above, it would have been obvious for the first and second condition outputs to be the line segments, which are displayed on their respectively assigned rows.
Regarding claim 16, the elements of claim 1 are found in claim 16. While Ebersohn does not explicitly disclose that computer program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium are executed by a processor to perform the method of claim 1, Ebersohn does disclose that the method is performed on a computer (see the title of the invention). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the method to be performed in the way described in claim 16 since this is typically how computers implement software. The remaining steps of claim 16 are recited in claim 1, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the first condition output comprises a first line segment (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches that the second condition output comprises a second line segment (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches that, in step (I), the first line segment and the second line segment are parallel to each other (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, in the case that the first and second conditions each represent a plurality of condition data values (see Fig. 9 of Ebersohn and the rejection of claim 1), it would have been obvious for the first condition output to comprise a plurality of first line segments and for the second condition output to comprise a plurality of second line segments.
Regarding claim 7, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for the step of determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other to comprise determining whether a location of the first condition is in proximity to a location of the second condition. If two conditions have overlapping linear coordinates, the overlap may be small or large (see Fig. 10 of Ebersohn, where maintenance line segments overlap by varying degrees), and by accounting for the degree of overlap when grouping the conditions by row one may convey that information visually.
Regarding claim 8, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1. Apuy further teaches selecting a visual characteristic based on a parameter value (Fig. 6I and ¶217, traffic severity 608h-j have different visual characteristics based on the amount of delay along a section of a route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Apuy with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy by causing the first condition data to have a first value of a first parameter; and causing the generating the first condition output to comprise: selecting a first visual characteristic based on the first value of the first parameter; and generating the first condition output to have the first visual characteristic. Recalling that conditions may represent defects (Ebersohn, Column 8, lines 10-20), it would have been obvious to include a parameter value of a first parameter which encodes the severity of the defect in order to classify priorities when planning and conducting maintenance. Then, it would have been obvious to select and display a visual characteristic of the condition output based on that value in order to quickly convey information about the severity (see Fig. 6I of Apuy which does this with traffic severity).
Regarding claim 9, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 8 and, under the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claim 8, it would have been obvious to cause the second condition data to have a second value of the first parameter; and to cause the generating the second condition output to comprise: selecting a second visual characteristic based on the second value of the first parameter; and generating the second condition output to have the second visual characteristic.
One would expect conditions along a train track to have varying levels of severity. In order to easily distinguish e.g. a mild condition from a severe one on the visual display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cause conditions with varying severity to be displayed with different visual characteristics (see Fig. 6I of Apuy, for example, where traffic conditions along a route vary and are displayed with different visual characteristics). For these reasons, then, it would have been obvious for the first value of the first parameter to differ from the second value of the first parameter; and for the first visual characteristic to differ from the second visual characteristic.
Regarding claim 10, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 9 and, following the reasoning in the rejection of claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious for the first parameter to represent the severity of a condition. Since a condition’s severity would be useful for prioritizing maintenance tasks, the first parameter may be considered to comprise a priority parameter.
Regarding claim 11, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that (J) comprises displaying the first condition output near a first portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the first condition (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches that (J) comprises displaying the first condition output parallel to, and separated by some distance from, the corresponding portion of the linear asset visual output (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches that (K) comprises displaying the second condition output near a second portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the second condition (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 11. Apuy further discloses that a route indication may curve with the route (Fig. 6A and ¶203, where rout indication 608a curves along with the route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Apuy with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy by causing (J) to comprise generating the first condition output to have a curvature that matches a curvature of the first portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the first condition. Doing so would enable a linear marker to clearly indicate a region in which a condition exists along a curved portion of track.
Regarding claim 15, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 14, and the arguments of claim 14 also render obvious causing (K) to comprise generating the second condition output to have a curvature that matches a curvature of a second portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the second condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersohn (US 5978717 A) in view of Khosravi (“Reducing the positional errors of railway track geometry measurements using alignment methods: A comparative case study”), Pickard (US 20230082722 A1) and Apuy (US 20220391074), and further in view of Miller (US 20070194099 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Miller teaches a system and method for tracking people affected by a public health crisis (Abstract). Miller discloses attaching a tag to victims of an incident (Fig. 1A, tag 300). The tag visually distinguishes victims by priority, where priority is represented by distinct rows of tabs (Fig. 1A, elements 312-320 categorize persons by priority, where ¶19 describes the elements as: 312, dead; 314, in need of immediate medical attention; 316, in need of delayed medical care; 318, minor injuries; 320, not a casualty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Miller with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy by causing the step of determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other to comprise determining whether a priority of the first condition is equal to a priority of the second condition. By doing so, one would be able to group overlapping conditions by priority, such that overlapping conditions displayed in the same row have the same priority, while overlapping conditions in different rows have different priorities. Doing so would be useful for quickly conveying information about which maintenance tasks are most important.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights