DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on September 18, 2026. Applicant has amended claim 1. Currently, claims 1, 5-23 are pending. 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 Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 5-22 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 9/18/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 8 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 8 of the remarks that the claims are eligible because the claims integrate the judicial exception into practical implementation because the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the computer-centric technology of software verification and controller design. Examiner disagrees and notes that software verification and controller design are not improved and that this is just generally linking the abstract idea to a computing environment. On the other hand, what is being improved is the proving of a model or even more specifically, the abstract idea itself. Applicant provides rules used for designing and verifying a train controller. Examiner notes these rules are mostly a description of the abstract idea and not support for practical implementation. Applicant further argues on p. 10 of the remarks that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees and notes the limitations being argues as significantly more are not considered additional elements but rather the abstract idea itself. Examiner further notes the combination of additional elements with the abstract idea also is conventional for proving a model where data received, a model is created and implemented and a value is computed. This is well understood, routine and conventional in the context of whether the ordered combination of elements including additional elements are significantly more than the abstract idea. Finally, applicant argues that new claim 23 is eligible. Examiner disagrees and notes “is used to validate actual train runs” is considered intended use and not given patentable weight under claim interpretation and is considered extra solution activity in terms of the 101 analysis. Finally, claim 23 does not show controlling the claim but rather more verification or validating as opposed to actually controlling a train. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-23 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a method). Claims 1, 5-23 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. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of creating and proving an abstract model of train motion and creating a train dynamics model by replacement of abstract terms in the abstract model by physical terms specified by a kinematic model of a train and proving train dynamics model by proving that stopping distance of the train never exceeds an end of movement authority of the train, the train dynamics model accounting for track grade, track curvature, resistance and air brake propagation time when computing the stopping distance and proving the safety of the train with respect to the train dynamics model and wherein the train controller and train dynamic model are expressed in a differential dynamic logic and wherein the train controller comprises a time control loop wherein, during every cycle, the controller computes the stopping distance the stopping distance being a distance travelled by the train before stopping if accelerated during the current cycle and then continuously braking during the next cycle, the computing of the stopping distance taking into account track grade, track curvature, resistance and air brake propagation time. The claims are directed to a type of proving of a model. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculations. Applicant’s claims are a mathematical concept because the claims are proving an abstract model which is a mathematical concept. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a train controller and creating the train controller based on proven dynamics model) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a train controller and creating the train controller based on the proven train dynamics model (as evidenced by para [0052], [0060]-[0062] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 5-23 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing wherein the safety of the train controller is proven if a position of the train never exceeds an end of movement authority and wherein a stopping distance of the train is expressed as a polynomial and instantiating the proven train dynamics model and wherein the instantiating comprises: substituting abstract function symbols in the mathematical abstraction of the kinematic model with physical terms from a specific kinematic model of a train and wherein the kinematic model is a high-fidelity physics model describing kinematic motion of the train along a track and wherein the specific kinematic model is the Federal Railroad Administration freight train kinematic model and wherein the mathematical abstraction of the kinematic model of the train is expressed as an ordinary differential equation in time comprising a plurality of variables selected from a group consisting of: train position, train velocity, position independent component of acceleration, acceleration due to use of air brakes, rate of change of air brake acceleration; acceleration due to grade; acceleration due to curvature and velocity-dependent resistance and wherein acceleration due to grade and curvature are represented by unspecified, bounded functions mapping a position of the train to a numeric value for acceleration due to grade and average curvature and wherein proof of the safety of the train controller is expressed in differential dynamic logic and wherein efficiency of the train controller is maximized when undershoot of the end of movement authority is minimized and wherein the train controller minimizes the undershoot by incorporating the effects of track gradient and curve resistance in the calculation of stopping distance and wherein the train controller further minimizes the undershoot by incorporating the effects of air brakes in the calculation of stopping distance and wherein the mathematical abstraction of a kinematic model of a train comprises multiple modes based on the effects of the air brakes and wherein the cycles of the train controller are periodically triggered and further wherein each cycle comprises two iterations to account for transitions of the train from one mode to another and monitoring the train controller for safe operation of the instantiated train dynamics model and wherein monitoring further comprises: computing a robustness measure indicating the proximity of decisions made by the train controller to loss of safety and wherein the monitor is implemented using ModelPlex and wherein the train controller, when verified for safety, is used to validate simulated and actual train runs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abdel-Khakik et al. (US 20220084704 A1), a system for a parameter or response assist filter that ensures that the predictions of a post-validation calibrated physics system simulator will remain within boundaries of a predetermined model validation domain
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
