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 . 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.
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) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et al. (US 2021/0146976 A1) in view of Nishi et al. (US 2019/0077426 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Takao teaches a train control system (10) comprising:
a plurality of trains (1) (Fig. 1);
a train operation control device (41) to identify a relief-object train (1a) that is a train having failure (Para. [0101]), and determine a relief train (1b) that is a train that moves on to the relief-object train to relieve the relief-object train, and determine a protective section from the relief train to
a ground control device (45, 46) to set, in the trains, the protective section determined by the train operation control device (Para. [0059]) (see reservation process in Fig. 5),
wherein the trains (1a, 1b) each transmit the on-track information including location information (Para. [0102])
Takao does not specifically teach that the trains transmit failure information to the train operation control device. However, Nishi teaches an on-board apparatus and ground system, wherein the trains (20) transmit failure information to the train operation control device (50) (Para. [0058-0059]) (Fig. 11) (see also Para. [0069], teaching “[i]t is assumed that, upon occurrence of a failure, the on-board apparatus 20 mounted on the failure train 2 can perform communication with the ground apparatus 50”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Takao to have the trains transmit failure information to the train operation control device, as taught by Nishi, in order to give the system more relevant information for relief/rescue operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Takao does not specifically teach determining a protective section from the relief train to a rear side of the relief-object train. However, Nishi teaches an on-board apparatus and ground system, wherein appropriate positioning is calculated based on whether the rescue train is in front of the failure train (Fig. 9) or behind the failure train (Fig. 8) (Para. [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Takao to determine and release protective sections based on the front or rear side position of the relief train, as suggested by Nishi, in order to provide appropriate protection for the nearest available relief train, travelling from either direction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Takao teaches the train control system according to claim 1, wherein the train operation control device (41) determines a section from the relief train (1b) to the front side of the relief-object train (1a) to be a protective section that can be released after the relief train has traveled therein (Para. [0088]) (Fig. 3), and the ground control device (45, 46) releases a subsection traveled by the relief train, of the protective section set in the train, from the protective section (Para. [0089]).
Takao does not specifically teach a case where the relief-object train can be restored and the relief train capable of traveling to a rear side of the relief-object train from behind on the same track on which the relief-object train has been stopped is found. However, Nishi teaches an on-board apparatus and ground system, wherein appropriate positioning is calculated based on whether the rescue train is in front of the failure train (Fig. 9) or behind the failure train (Fig. 8) (Para. [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Takao to determine and release protective sections based on the front or rear side position of the relief train, as suggested by Nishi, in order to provide appropriate protection for the nearest available relief train, travelling from either direction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 3: Takao teaches the train control system according to claim 1, wherein the train operation control device (41) determines a section from the relief train (1b) to the front side of the relief-object train (1a) to be a protective section that can be released after the relief train has traveled therein (Para. [0088]) (Fig. 3), and the ground control device (45, 46) releases a subsection traveled by the relief train, of the protective section set in the train, from the protective section (Para. [0089]).
Takao does not specifically teach a case where the relief-object train can be restored and the relief train capable of traveling to a rear side of the relief-object train from behind on the same track on which the relief-object train has been stopped is found. However, Nishi teaches an on-board apparatus and ground system, wherein appropriate positioning is calculated based on whether the rescue train is in front of the failure train (Fig. 9) or behind the failure train (Fig. 8) (Para. [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Takao to determine and release protective sections based on the front or rear side position of the relief train, as suggested by Nishi, in order to provide appropriate protection for the nearest available relief train, travelling from either direction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 15: Takao does not specifically teach a case where the relief-object train cannot be restored, when the relief train capable of traveling to a front side of the relief-object train from a forward station on the same track on which the relief-object train has been stopped is found, the train operation control device determines a section from the forward station to the front side of the relief-object train to be the protective section, and when the relief train capable of traveling to a rear side of the relief-object train from a rearward station on the track is found, the train operation control device determines a section from the rearward station to the rear side of the relief-object train to be the protective section. However, Nishi teaches an on-board apparatus and ground system, wherein appropriate positioning is calculated based on whether the rescue train is in front of the failure train (Fig. 9) or behind the failure train (Fig. 8) (Para. [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Takao to determine and release protective sections based on the front or rear side position of the relief train, as suggested by Nishi, in order to provide appropriate protection for the nearest available relief train, travelling from either direction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 8-10 and 18, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1-3 and 15, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4 and depending claim 16, and corresponding method claims 11 and 19, the prior art fails to teach “wherein in a case where the relief train is not found on the same first track on which the relief-object train has been stopped and the relief train capable of traveling to a station forward from the relief-object train from a station rearward from the relief-object train is found on a second track in a travel direction opposite to a travel direction of the relief-object train, which is adjacent to the first track, the train operation control device determines a section from the rearward station to the forward station on the second station to be the protective section that can be released after the relief train has traveled therein, and the ground control device releases a subsection traveled by the relief train, of the protective section set in the train, from the protective section.” While Takao teaches trains traveling on separate tracks (see Figs. 3 and 6), Takao fails to teach the specific travel, determination and release operations claimed. Further, while it is known to manage train traffic on adjacent rails, with trains travelling in the same or opposing directions (see, e.g., JP 2017-019381 A and Yanai et al. (US 2021/0031819 A1)), Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Takao to reconfigure the system or method in a manner that would satisfy the specific claimed limitations regarding scenarios where the relief train is not on the same track as the stopped relief-object train. For example, modifying Takao in view of JP 2017-019381 A to satisfy the claimed limitations would require completely redesigning Takao’s track subsections and resource management tables.
Regarding claim 5 and corresponding method claim 12, the prior art fails to teach “wherein in a case where the relief train is not found on the same first track on which the relief-object train has been stopped, when the relief train capable of traveling to a rear side of the relief-object train from a station forward from the relief-object train is found on a second track in a travel direction opposite to a travel direction of the relief-object train, which is adjacent to the first track, the train operation control device determines a section from the forward station to the rear side of the relief-object train on the second track to be the protective section, and when the relief train capable of traveling to a front side of the relief-object train from a station rearward from the relief-object train is found on the second track, the train operation control device determines a section from the rearward station to the front side of the relief-object train on the second track to be the protective section.” These claims are non-obvious in view of Takao and JP 2017-019381 A for substantially the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 6 and depending claim 17, and corresponding method claims 13 and 20, the prior art fails to teach “wherein in a case where the relief train is not found on the same first track on which the relief- object train has been stopped and the relief train capable of traveling to a station forward from the relief-object train from a rearward station is found on a third track in a travel direction same as a travel direction of the relief-object train, which is adjacent to the first track, the train operation control device determines a section from the rearward station to the front side of the relief-object train on the third track to be a protective section that can be released after the relief train has traveled therein, and the ground control device releases a subsection traveled by the relief train, of the protective section set in the train, from the protective section.” These claims are non-obvious in view of Takao and JP 2017-019381 A for substantially the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 7 and corresponding method claim 14, the prior art fails to teach “wherein in a case where the relief train is not found on the same first track on which the relief- object train has been stopped, when the relief train capable of traveling to a rear side of the relief-object train from a station forward from the relief-object train is found on a second track in a travel direction opposite to a travel direction of the relief-object train, which is adjacent to the first track, the train operation control device determines a section from the forward station to the rear side of the relief-object train on the second track to be the protective section, and when the relief train capable of traveling to a front side of the relief-object train from a station rearward from the relief-object train is found on the second track, the train operation control device determines a section from the rearward station to the front side of the relief-object train on the second track to be the protective section.” These claims are non-obvious in view of Takao and JP 2017-019381 A for substantially the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617