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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20, 22-39 are pending. Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims. Claim 21 had been cancelled. Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, and 39 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 09/25/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 09/25/2025; “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims files on 09/25/2025, the objections to claims 5, 7, and 8 have been withdrawn. The amendments to the specification and drawing (replacement of the Figure 39), filed on 9/25/2025 are considered.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 09/25/2025, with respect to claims Rejections of claims 1-19, and 20-39 under 35 USC § 101, See page 30 of the Remarks, and with respect to Rejections of claims under 35 USC § 103, See page 32 of Remarks, have been considered but they are not, respectfully, persuasive. With respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 20 as currently recited, applicant argues that the amended claims include elements that integrate the claims to “significantly more” than just defining the abstract idea. However, the office respectfully disagrees because under step 2A Prong I evaluation of the claim, and as is described in the Office Action below, the steps of receiving data, identifying/auditing a threat and displaying the results can be performed in the human mind and therefore falls under mental processes that is a category of abstract idea. Under step 2A Prong II, the newly amended/added additional limitation of “using an artificial intelligence component of the video and audio scanner” has been recited in a high level of generality and is just linking an abstract idea to applying the results of the artificial intelligence component. Therefore, it doesn’t integrate the claims to a practical application. The artificial intelligence component, is used to generally apply the abstract idea without reciting any details of how it uses the outcome and further Step 2Bevaluation, generally applying an artificial intelligence component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 20, further amended to include the limitation of “using data from at least one of at least one gyroscope, at least one power management module, and at least one source of geographic location information”, which is an additional element that do not integrate any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 is maintained (See Office Action below).
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 USC § has been considered. Applicant argues that the Jordan reference does not disclose a step of scanning images received from a camera nor the element of a video and audio scanner to which a camera is electronically connected, as recited in amended claim 1. The office disagrees because Jordan according to at least paragraph [0082] discloses “The real-time data acquisition and recording system of the fifth embodiment can be used to continuously monitor objects of interest and identify in real-time when they have been moved or damaged, become obstructed by foliage, and/or are in disrepair and in need of maintenance.” or according to [0087], it is discloses that “DARS 900 further comprises a video analytics system 910 that includes a track and/or object detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914. The track detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914 comprises a supervised learning and/or reinforcement learning component 924, or other neural network or artificial intelligence component, an object detection and location component 926, and an obstruction detection component 928 that detects obstructions present on or near the tracks and/or camera obstructions such as personnel blocking the camera’s view.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the office and according to at least cited paragraph of Jordan (Also see the rejection of claim 1 in Office Action below), the monitoring component as discloses in Jordan reads on the element of video and audio scanner as recited in claims 1 and 20. Furthermore, newly amended claims 1 and 20 encompasses the new limitation of “power management module” that is not supported by the specification even with consideration of the specification amendment submitted o 09/25/2025 and it resulted to new rejections. Please see the Office Action below.
Also, applicant’s argument regarding Wickramarathne reference has been considered but it is not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, applicant argues that none of the additional references as combined with the teaching of primary referenced Jordan, Zhu and Lebaredian suggest the elements of dependent claims 2-19, and 21-39, however, the argument is not respectfully persuasive. This is the office stance that all the rejections have been properly made,
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 1-39 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.
Claims 1 and 20 as currently presented, encompasses term “power management module”. Applicant has amended the instant specification, paragraph [00249] and has added term power management after Wi-Power-III and has provided support in Exhibit A that the applicant’s Wi-Power-III is a device for power management. However, this is the office stance that term power management as recited in the claims is more than just a device and this limitation is not supported by applicant’s field disclosure, and is considered new matter. The current specification does not appear to support the amendment. With acknowledgement to paragraph [0002], the Examiner did not have the appropriate time to consider all references incorporated. If the disclosures incorporated by reference support the new subject matter, the Applicant may present the appropriate publication number and location which supports the added matter. Upon consideration of the remarks identifying the support the new matter rejections may be withdrawn.
In order to overcome the new matter rejections above, the Examiner requires applicant to cancel or remove the cited new matter, or to traverse this rejection with a detailed explanation of their position, including paragraph citations and/or drawing figures of how the cited limitations are fully supported by applicant ‘s original disclosure or applicant’s currently amended disclosure.
Dependent claims of the rejected claims above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to dependency on these claims.
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 1-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 as currently presented, encompasses term “power management module”. Applicant has amended the instant specification in paragraph [00249] and has added term power management after Wi-Power-III and has provided support in Exhibit A that the applicant’s Wi-Power-III is a device for power management. It is the office stance that term management is beyond just a device. Therefore, it is not clear to the office what the power management module (being a device, according to the applicant’s Remark files on 09/25/2025) exactly refer to. It is unclear according to the specification of the instant application, what kind of data, the data management module provides and it is not disclosed what its output is.
Dependent claims of the rejected claims above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to dependency on these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-19, and 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claims 1 and 20 are directed to a method. Therefore, the claim falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A method for identifying at least one of a configurable predefined threat, a configurable predefined event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations involving at least one mobile asset comprising: receiving, using a digital video and audio recorder of a real-time data acquisition and recording system onboard the mobile asset, data based on at least one data signal from at least one of at least one data source onboard the mobile asset and at least one data source remote from the mobile asset, the at least one data source onboard the mobile asset comprising at least one camera, the at least one camera electronically connected to a video and audio scanner, the data received during a configurable predetermined time frame; identifying, using an artificial intelligence of the video and audio scanner, at least one of the threat, the key event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations; associating, associating, using data from at least one of at least one gyroscope, at least one power management module, and at least one source of geographic location information, at least one of the threat, the key event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations at least one of within and around at least one of a configurable predetermined amount of time before the time frame, a configurable predetermined amount of time after the time frame, and a configurable predetermined amount of time during the time frame; and displaying, using a mobile optimized viewer powered with conversational artificial intelligence, audit results based on the data on a dashboard of the mobile asset.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the limitations “identifying one of a predefined threat, event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations”, “receiving data based on data signal from data source onboard the mobile asset”, “identifying one of the threat, the key event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations” and “displaying, audit results” in the context of this claim encompasses processes that can be performed in human mind it falls under mental process that is a category of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step2A Prong II evaluation: Practical Application – No
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “using an artificial intelligence component of the video and audio scanner” that is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the step of identifying one of a configurable predefined threat, predefined event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations involving at least one mobile asset, therefore, acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The “using an artificial intelligence component of the video and audio scanner” is claimed generically and does not use the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of “using data from at least one of at least one gyroscope, at least one power management module, and at least one source of geographic location information” is merely the step of applying data and is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “using a data acquisition and recording system onboard the mobile asset, data based on at least one data signal from at least one of at least one data source onboard the mobile asset and at least one data source remote from the mobile asset, the data collected during a configurable predetermined time frame;”, “using an artificial intelligence model”, “using a mobile optimized viewer powered with conversational artificial intelligence” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the Office submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Claim 20 recites limitation for a system that comprise the same abstract of claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 is also patent ineligible for the same reasons stated in the above for claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-19 and 21-39 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-19 recites more description about the limitations of identifying an audit type and corresponding selection of a set of candidate data (candidate mobile assets or candidate employee list) which are performed based on well-known statistical method or based on the working requirements which are, respectively, extra solution activity and conceptual processes (fall under the mental process analysis), and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, claims 3-7 recites additional steps of “identifying audit type” and “identifying det of mobile assets”, “identifying list an employee list”, “revising the list using a random generator” and er., that is an extra-solution activity and falls under mental process. With respect to claims 8-19, the steps as recited in the claims can be performed in human mind and fall under abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for the rejection of claim 13. Claims 21-39 are dependent on claim 20 and are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for the rejection of claim 1 (similar subject matter as claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan, AU 2019280705 A1, hereinafter “Jordan”, in view of Zhu et al., CN112737859A, hereinafter “Zhu”, further in view of Lebaredian, US 12205210 B2, hereiafter “Lebaredian”.
Regarding claim 1, Jordan discloses a method for identifying at least one of a configurable predefined threat, a configurable predefined event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations (Abstract, [0036], “access to data such as event and operational data”, “data recorder, relating to the asset and streams the data to a remote data repository and remotely located users prior to, during, and after an incident has occurred.”, [0038], “During an incident, for example, real-time information and/or data can facilitate triaging the situation and provide valuable information”, [0043], “to determine whether an event, incident or other predefined situation involving the asset 148, 248 has occurred”, __analyzing the data related to operational event and/or incident meet the claim limitation of identifying predefined event and threats__): involving at least one mobile asset comprising (e.g., “desired data relating to a selected asset to view and analyze the operational efficiency and safety of assets in real-time or near real-time”) receiving, using a digital video and audio recorder of a real-time data acquisition and recording system onboard the mobile asset ([0004], “real-time data acquisition and recording system”, [0081]), data based on at least one data signal from at least one of at least one data source onboard the mobile asset and at least one data source remote from the mobile asset, the at least one data source onboard the mobile asset comprising at least one camera, the at least one camera electronically connected to a video and audio scanner (at least Fig.1, camera that is connected to Data Recorder, [0066], “The onboard data manager 812 monitors the video and audio data”, [0082], [0087], “The track detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914 comprises a supervised learning and/or reinforcement learning component 924, or other neural network or artificial intelligence component,”, “The cameras 940 are placed at an appropriate height and angle to capture video data in and around the asset 964 and obtain a sufficient amount of the view for further processing. The live video data and image data is captured in front of and/or around the asset 964 by the cameras 940 and is fed to the track and/or object detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914 for analysis.”, __the video and image data captured by the cameras being fed to monitoring component for analysis reads on camera electronically connected to a video and audio scanner; Note: video and audio scanner is interpreted as a component that scan/monitors the data and the cited paragraph of Jordan meets this limitation __), the data received during a configurable predetermined time frame; ([0004]-[0005], “receive data based on at least one data signal from at least one of at least one data source onboard the mobile asset and at least one data source remote from the mobile asset” [0045]-[0046], “predetermined amount of time […] is configurable”, [0083]) identifying, using an artificial intelligence component of the video and audio scanner, at least one of the threat, the key event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations; (Fig. 17 and 18, [0085], [0087]-[0088], [0092], “uses […] artificial intelligence […] to process and evaluate camera images and video data from cameras 940 in real-time.”, __according to at least [0092], determining for example obstruction detection or object detection which reads on identifying a threat, can be performed by using artificial intelligence to process and evaluate the camera images__) associating, using data from at least one of at least one gyroscope, at least one power management module, and at least one source of geographic location information ([0084], “data from a geographic information system (GIS)”, [0090], “additional information received [] geographic position of the mobile asset”, [00110], __Examiner Note: the claim is recited as alterative and for the alternative limitations, only one limitation needs to be addresses, however for the purpose of compact prosecution using the data from gyroscope has been addresses in the rejection of claim 20, See rejection of claim 20__), at least one of the threat, the key event, and non-compliance with applicable mobile asset regulations at least one of within and around at least one of a configurable predetermined amount of time before the time frame, a configurable predetermined amount of time after the time frame, and a configurable predetermined amount of time during the time frame ([0046], “he predetermined amount of time […] is configurable”, “The transition between near real-time mode and real-time mode typically occurs in less than five seconds. After a predetermined amount of time has passed since the event or incident”, [0057], “prior to, during, and after an incident has occurred.”, __incident reads on threats as recites in the claim__);
Jordan doesn’t explicitly disclose displaying, using a mobile optimized viewer powered with conversational artificial intelligence, audit results based on the data on a dashboard of the mobile asset.
However, Zhu teaches displaying audit results based on the data on a dashboard of the mobile asset ([n0006], [n0014], “displays and stores the port traffic statistics messages sent by all Ethernet switches in the group as audit logs, and issues a pop-up screen alarm for abnormal traffic.”). Furthermore, to use a mobile optimized viewer powered with conversational artificial intelligence is a common feature in vehicle (voice assistants, chatbots and etc., are some of the examples of conversational AI that is being integrated into the systems of the vehicles. For the purpose of compact prosecution, for instance, Lebaredian teaches displaying, using a mobile optimized viewer powered with conversational artificial intelligence (at least Abstract and Col 1-2, Lines 64-67 and 1-31, “conversational AI assistant”, Col 3, Lines 19-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the data acquisition and recording systems in high value assets as taught by Jordan with displaying the audit results on a dashboard of a mobile asset powered by conversational AI, as taught by Zhu and Lebaredian, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve safety by allowing visibility to events such as fault, alerts, warning and informative message where the display is powered by conversational AI which enhance the response time and convenience for the operators.
Regarding claim 2, Jordan sharing the audit results on a condition that an authorized employee has requested that the audit results be shared ([0077], [00123], [00125]).
Regarding claim 5, Jordan teaches The method of claim 3, further comprising: selecting at least one performance review criteria ([0038], “audit crew performance”); reviewing on-demand crew performance while the mobile asset is driving through at least one failed crossing in bad weather and downloading at least one multimedia file around the at least one failed crossing and in bad weather ([0038], [0039], “Data may include […] information about the environmental conditions, including current and forecasted weather conditions, of the area in which the asset is currently operating in”, [0090], “Mobile asset data from the vehicle data component 934 includes, […] rail crossings. ”, __the reference teaches reviewing data while the mobile asset driving through bad weather and also teaches the data including monitoring rail crossing. It is obvious that by monitoring rail crossing and also reviewing data while asset drives in bad weather, the failed crossing in bad weather would be detected and it would have been obvious to audit the crew performance in failed crossing in bad weather __).
Regarding claim 6, Jordan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one audit date; and sending the at least one audit date to at least one authorized employee (Fig 10, [0077], [0090]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Zhu and Lebaredian, further in view of Weber, US 20020138377 A1, hereinafter “Weber”.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art relied upon teaches the method of claim, however doesn’t explicitly teaches identifying an audit type comprising at least one of random mobile asset selection, random employee selection, and on-demand crew performance analysis based on at least one search criteria; identifying a configurable predetermined set of mobile assets on a condition that the audit type is random mobile asset selection; identifying an employee list associated with the mobile asset on a condition that the audit type is random employee selection; revising, using a random generator, the employee list to include a configurable predetermined set of employees associated with the mobile asset on a condition that the audit type is random employee selection; and selecting an employee for performance evaluation on a condition that the audit type is on- demand crew performance analysis.
However, Weber teaches identifying an audit type ([0005], “The auditor then selects a number of compliance issues on which to test the selected individuals”, [0068], “in accordance with different criteria”, __these meet the limitation of identifying an audit type__) comprising at least one of([0053], “randomly selects the requested number of employees to audit ”, ), and on-demand crew performance analysis based on at least one search criteria ([0006], __Weber reference discloses that the information gathered during audit is used to determine the performance of an employee which reads on the on-demand crew performance analysis__, [0007], “a series of audits are typically performed on each rail company and its employees”, [0010], __Also, according to the example in paragraph [0074], creating a query regarding the drug regulations is an example of the search criteria as recited in the claim, therefore, the reference teaches performance analysis of crew/employee based on selecting the number of queries (which reads on based on search criteria)) ([0079], [0080], “employee listing report”, __according to these paragraphs, employee listing reports comprises information sorted by employee name or number for the randomly selected employees. Therefore employee listing report meet the limitation of the claim); revising, using a random generator ([0053], “the "selection" may be made pseudo-randomly”, __pseudo randomly selection reads on using a random generator), the employee list to include a configurable predetermined set of employees associated with the mobile asset on a condition that the audit type is random employee selection ([0053], “randomly selects the requested number of employees to audit”, __read on predetermined set of employee”, ([0079], [0080], “employee listing report”); and selecting an employee for performance evaluation on a condition that the audit type is on- demand crew performance analysis ([0041], “The employee table 160 comprises an employee name field 162 for identifying the name of the employee that is subject to being audited via use of the auditing system”, __this reads on selecting an employee for performance evaluation__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the data acquisition and recording systems in high value assets as taught by Jordan with the step of randomly selection of employees, and the associated employees list as taught by Weber, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to evaluate/audit the employee and drawing conclusion about the performance by auditing a numbers/sample of employees/assets and obtaining a reasonable assurance regarding the performance of the on-demand crew based/assets on the results from the sample.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Zhu and Lebaredian, further in view of Weber and Bansal et al., US 20180308018 A1, hereinafter “Bansal” (or in alternative Soldo, US 20210342784 A1, hereinafter “Soldo”) and further in view of Walsh, US 20130273882 A1, hereinafter “Walsh”, and Pyhalammi et al., US 20090004974 A1, hereinafter “Pyhalammi”.
Regarding claim 4, Jordan doesn’t explicitly disclose selecting at least one performance review criteria; identifying a set of candidate mobile assets comprising at least one mobile asset operated by the employee; and revising the set of candidate mobile assets to include a subset of candidate mobile assets comprising highest probability of successful random downloads.
Nevertheless, although Weber disclose selecting at least one performance review criteria ([0005], “The auditor then selects a number of compliance issues on which to test the selected individuals”, __selecting a number of compliance issues reads on selecting review criteria) and teaches identifying a set of specified employees (which can also reads on identifying a set of candidate mobile assets), but Weber doesn’t explicitly teaches identifying a set of candidate mobile assets comprising at least one mobile asset operated by the employee. However, this limitation refers to a common mathematical process of selecting a subset/specified candidate of data from a larger set of data. This process has been used in arts for different purpose of reporting results. For example, and for the purpose of compact prosecution Bansal discloses, at least according to the Abstract and paragraph [0009], and [0050], selecting/obtaining a set of credit card authorizations associated with a merchant (which can be substituted by identifying a set of candidate mobile asset recited in the instant claim) and then determining a selected day authorizations subset by selecting from the set of credit card authorization, credit card authorization issued on the specified day (which can be substituted by selecting a mobile asset from the set of candidate mobile assets operated by the employee). Also, as another alternative, Soldo, US 20210342784 A1, discloses performing a review of one employee by displaying assets assigned to that employee which reads on the limitation of identifying one mobile asset operated by the employee. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the data acquisition and recording systems in high value assets as taught by Jordan with the step of identifying a set of mobile assets operated by a subject employee as taught similarly by Bansal (or in alternative by Soldo), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of gaining insight to detect potential performance inefficiency by corelating asset evaluation with operator performance. This step can promote accountability and enables decision regarding the crew performance that can improve overall operational effectiveness.
Furthermore, Jordan in view of Weber and Bansal, doesn’t explicitly disclose revising the set of candidate mobile assets to include a subset of candidate mobile assets comprising highest probability of successful random downloads.
However, combination of Walsh and Pyhalammi teaches revising the set of candidate mobile assets to include a subset of candidate mobile assets comprising highest probability of successful random downloads. (__selecting/filtering a subset of data according to the highest probability of success is a common method, for example, Walsh, US 20130273882 A1, in paragraph [0027] teaches filtering a set of data (strings) according to the probability of success of an event (success of entry by a user), Furthermore, Pyhalammi et al., US 20090004974 A1, teaches determining the success rate of downloading according to paragraphs [0006], [0040], [0042]-[0043] and combination of the two references teaches filtering/revising the set of data (candidates mobile asset as recited in the claim) based on the highest probability of successful download. Therefore, the combination of the two reference teaches the claimed subject matter__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the data acquisition and recording systems in high value assets as taught by Jordan with the step of revising the selection of mobile assets candidates according to the highest probability of successful random download as taught in combination by Walsh and Pyhalammi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of assuring the selection of the controlling locomotives/assets that have the highest rate of download in order to immediately downloading the video file from the cameras on the assets. This can increase the speed of evaluation process and save time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Zhu and Ledaredian, further in view of Weber, Bansal, Walsh and Pyhalammi, and further in view of Shubs, US 20170129512, hereinafter “Shubs” and Meltser et al., US 20150210295 A1, hereinafter “Meltser”.
Regarding claim 7, Jordan discloses determining whether an event data recorder associated with the mobile asset is available for the time frame ([0059], “Data files containing time segments recorded”, “desired data relating to a selected asset to view and analyze the operational efficiency and safety of assets in real-time or near real-time.”, [0070], “When the remote event detector receives the decoded data, it processes the decoded data to determine if an event of interest is found in the decoded data.”, and [0087], “The track detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914 of the video analytics system 910 processes the live video and image data frame by frame to detect the presence of the rail tracks and any objects of interest. ”, __the cited reference reads on determining whether the data associated with the event of interest (that relates to a selected asset according to [0059]) is available for the time frame by processing the vedio/image data frame by frame__ );
Jordan doesn’t explicitly disclose identifying an asset type associate with the mobile asset, the asset type comprising one of with engine and without engine on a condition that the event data recorder is available; determining whether the mobile asset is in lead service for at least a configurable predetermined amount of time on a condition that asset type is without engine and on a condition that a local reverser associated with the mobile asset is one of forward and reverse; and adding the mobile asset to a set of lead service mobile assets.
However, Shubs teaches identifying an asset type associate with the mobile asset, the asset type comprising one of with engine and without engine on a condition that the event data recorder is available ([0019], [0030] “identifying which locomotive in which locomotive consist the information is intended for”, __the further conditional aspect of the claim limitation reciting on a condition that the event data recorder is available is an obvious feature since the claim as a whole recites further analyzing the recorded data associating with mobile assets, therefore it can happen when the data recorder (or relevant recorded data) is available and the this step of determining if the data recorder is available is already mapped according to the paragraph [0070] of Jordan (See the first paragraph of rejection of claim 7) __); and adding the mobile asset to a set of lead service mobile assets. (Shubs, [0016], “change the designated operational configuration of the locomotive between lead locomotive for the consist and trailing locomotive.”, [0020]-[0023]).
However, Meltser teaches determining whether the mobile asset is in lead service for at least a configurable predetermined amount of time on a condition that asset type is without engine and on a condition that a local reverser associated with the mobile asset is one of forward and reverse ([0026], “determine and relay an operational status of a rail vehicle (e.g., a lead or trail status”, [0056], “reverser position sensors,”, [0006], [0064], “The operational status may be a lead or trail status [] and may include one or more further status designations, such as run or isolate”, [0048], [0049], “The lead isolate status represents that the operational settings of the rail vehicle are used to control one or more other rail vehicles during the trip, and that the rail vehicle is not able to provide power to propel the rail vehicle system because the engine is isolated (e.g., operatively uncoupled) from the one or more traction motors.”, __Examiner note: determining further status designations as cited above, such as determining if the asset is a run or isolate (without engine) reads on the conditional aspects of the claim. i.e. determining first status (e.g. lead) and based on that further determine second status (e.g., with/without engine or based on the direction) meet the conditional aspect of the claim __);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the data acquisition and recording systems in high value assets as taught by Jordan with the steps of identifying the power status (with or without engine) and lead status (if the locomotive is in lead service) as taught by Shubs and Meltser, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to enhance the overall control of the system by providing the real-time accurate and reliable informative asset-related data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Zhu and Lebaredian, further in view of Weber and Bansal, Walsh, Pyhalammi, and further in view of Meltser.
Regarding claim 8, Jordan discloses The method of claim 4, further comprising: determining whether an event data recorder associated with the mobile asset is available for the time frame ([0059], “Data files containing time segments recorded by the “black box” had to be downloaded and retrieved from the “black box” and then viewed by a user with proprietary software. ”, “desired data relating to a selected asset to view and analyze the operational efficiency and safety of assets in real-time or near real-time.”, [0070], “When the remote event detector receives the decoded data, it processes the decoded data to determine if an event of interest is found in the decoded data.”, [0087], “The track detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914 of the video analytics system 910 processes the live video and image data frame by frame to detect the presence of the rail tracks and any objects of interest. ”, __the cited reference reads on determining whether the data associated with the event of interest (that relates to a selected asset according to [0059]) is available for the time frame by processing the vedio/image data frame by frame__)
Jordan doesn’t explicitly disclose determining a state of an air brake associated with the mobile asset, the state comprising one of passenger cut-in and freight passenger cut-in on a condition that a local reverser associated with the mobile asset is one of forward and reverse; determining whether the mobile asset is in distributed power mode in lead service; determining whether the mobile asset is in lead service for at least a configurable predetermined amount of time on a condition that the asset type is without engine and on a condition that the mobile asset is in distributed power mode in lead service; and adding the mobile asset to a set of lead service mobile assets.
However, Meltser teaches determining a state of an air brake associates with the mobile asset, the state comprising one of passenger cutin and freight passenger cutin on a condition that a local reverser associated with the mobile asset is one of forward and reverse ([0033], “The position sensor 222 may be configured to monitor the position of the C-26 control valve and/or whether the cut-out cock is in a cut-in or cut-out position.”, [0056], “reverser position sensors,”, __under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, terms passenger cut in and freight cut in, has been interpreted as the setting on a cut out valve that determines the braking characteristic of a train__); determining whether the mobile asset is in distributed power mode in lead service ([0003], “status for distributed power operations”, [0005], “The lead status represents that operational settings including at least one of throttle or brake settings of the rail vehicle during the trip are used to control the at least one other rail vehicle in the consist according to a distributed power arrangement”); determining whether the mobile asset is in lead service for at least a configurable predetermined amount of time on a condition that asset type is without engine and on a condition that the mobile asset is in distributed power mode in lead service ([0045], “The position of the valve may indicate an operational status of the rail vehicle. For example, the first position of the valve may indicate that the rail vehicle is in a lead operational status in a distributed power consist,”, [0046], [0048], “determines the operational status of the rail vehicle as lead run, lead isolate, trail run, or trail isolate.”, and at least [0049]-[0054] __the lead run and lead isolate status, respectively, reads on mobile asset being in lead service on a condition that asset type is with no engine and on a condition that asset is in distributed power__); and adding the mobile asset to a set of lead service mobile assets ([0005], “The method also includes setting, by one or more processors, an operational status of the rail vehicle in the consist to one of a lead status”, [0017], [0039], [0040], [0047], [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the data acquisition and recording systems in high value assets as taught by Jordan with the steps of identifying the braking state, lead status and power mode of the asset as taught by Meltser, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation to enhance the overall control of the system by providing the real-time accurate and reliable informative asset-related data.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Zhu and Lebaredian, further in view of Weber, Bansal, Walsh and Pyhalammi, and further in view of Shubs.
Regarding claim 9, Jordan teaches determining whether an event data recorder associated with the mobile asset is available for the time frame ([0059], “Data files containing time segments recorded by the “black box” had to be downloaded and retrieved from the “black box” and then viewed by a user with proprietary software. ”, “desired data relating to a selected asset to view and analyze the operational efficiency and safety of assets in real-time or near real-time.”, [0070], “When the remote event detector receives the decoded data, it processes the decoded data to determine if an event of interest is found in the decoded data.”, [0087], “The track detection and infrastructure monitoring component 914 of the video analytics system 910 processes the live video and image data frame by frame to detect the presence of the rail tracks and any objects of interest. ”, __the cited reference reads on determining whether the data associated with the event of interest (that relates to a selected asset according to [0059]) is available for the time frame by processing the video/image data frame by frame__) determining whether asset data is available for the mobile asset on a condition that the event data recorder associated with the mobile asset is not available for the time frame ([0003], “Certain situations may arise where the data recorder cannot be recovered or the data is otherwise unavailable. In these situations, the data, such as event and operational data, video data, and audio data, acquired by the data acquisition and recording system is needed promptly regardless of whether physical access to the data acquisition and recording system or the data is unavailable”); determining whether the mobile asset is in lead service for at least a configurable predet