DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 10/23/2025, Applicant on 02/18/2026, amended Claims 1, 11, and 21. Claims 1-30 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been therefore updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Applicants' amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action in view of new and updated grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants' amendments. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants' amendments, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that claims fail to recite an abstract idea, and therefore are eligible under Step 2A Prong I. Examiner disagrees, and notes that it is somewhat unclear what specific limitations Applicant disagrees with as reciting an abstract idea. To this end, Examiner respectfully notes the rejections under Step 2A Prong I below.
Applicant further argues that claims integrate any allegedly recited abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of claiming limitations that involve the specific operations of the processor, citing an improvement to technology as the rationale for integration into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In support of this argument, Applicant cites [0075]. However, citing said portion of Applicant’s specification, “The MWR control logic 400 can leverage the ability of a computer platform to spawn multiple processes and threads by processing data simultaneously. The speed and efficiency of the MWR control logic 400 can be greatly improved by instantiating more than one process for monitoring a status of the railway assets, defects, and projects”. Notably, it is the speed and efficiency of the underlying control logic. When said control logic corresponds to the abstract ideas recited by the claims, it cannot be said that an actual improvement to technology, or the claimed processor itself, is supported by Applicant’s specification. "It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology" and courts have indicated that mere "automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer" is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the characterization of the invention as representing “an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself” is not supported by the specification, and for that reason Examiner finds an argument on these grounds to be unpersuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been updated to address Applicant’s amendments and maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejections necessitated by applicant' s amendments. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 103.
Applicant argues Martin does not disclose newly added limitations modifying “refining the location using a user interface…””. Examiner respectfully notes that these arguments are rendered moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, and notes the updated rejections below.
Applicant subsequently argues that the present rejection lacks a motivation to combine Martin and Bates. Examiner firstly disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the provided motivation statement as “conclusory”. For purpose of clarification, we begin by addressing the why, or motivation to combine for purpose of clarification. Martin teaches a system of managing operator maintenance of railroad engineering. Bates teaches a system directed to facilitating operator maintenance and repairs. In [0081] of Martin, “In the case of inspections, User Interface 113 on each Remote Terminal 111 relates disparate information regarding physical assets, pending and historical inspections, and defects previously recorded regarding an asset. This information is used to guide the inspector through a physical inspection of the asset to ensure that all necessary inspection stops are performed and the required data gathered”. This is directly analogous to the guided prompting of Bates, but is somewhat underspecified in exactly what information is displayed to an operator, a deficiency that [0139] of Bates makes concrete.
Regarding the “how”, Examiner respectfully notes the mapping below, and that said mapping is intended to show how the mechanics of the combination teaches claimed limitations to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As arguments have not been found to be persuasive, Examiner respectfully notes that rejections have been updated to address amendments and maintained below.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity, and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A method for mobile reporting of railroad operations by a computing system, the computing system including one or more processors configured to execute computer program instructions, including: spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions: spawning a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein the first computer process and the second computer process are spawned concurrently, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to concurrently process data to perform the steps of the method for mobile reporting of railroad operations; determining a location, at a mobile device comprising a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a microprocessor, a display, and a wireless communication transceiver, by displaying a course location received by the GPS receiver from a plurality of GPS satellites and receiving a location refinement from a user; refining the location using a user interface configured to display a map and a location icon on the mobile device, wherein refining the location includes: displaying a pin marker indicating a current location on the user interface; receiving user input including dragging the pin marker to a new position to define a refined location; receiving confirmation of the refined location; identifying location data corresponding to the refined location; and auto-populating a location field using the location data corresponding to the refined location; reporting temporary and permanent remedial actions, root causes, measurements, methods of repair, and photos and/or notes as applicable to various defect types; using a hub design that, in response to the refined location, queries and external network- based server for user work within a predetermined distance of the refined location; and presents the user work within the predetermined distance grouped by proximity in the user interface; embedding, in the user interface, training components relevant to a current task, wherein the training components are retrieved based on one or more of the user's department or gang and the current task, and wherein the training components are for display concurrent with the user work within the predetermined distance; geo-coding track safety information; and automatically reporting track inspection work orders.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a method of organizing human activity and mental process. “Determining a location”, “receiving a location refinement from a user”, “refining the location”, “identifying location data”, “reporting temporary and permanent remedial actions, root causes, measurements, methods of repair, and photos and/or notes as applicable to various defect types”, “embedding training components relevant to a current task”, “automatically reporting track inspection work orders” are abstract ideas - namely, these are mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Furthermore, as the underlying functionality of such limitations is to provide human inspectors with information in the field, we also take this to be a certain method of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claims 11, 21 recite abstract ideas by virtue of disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-30 recite abstract ideas by virtue of their dependency on independent Claims 1,11,21.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception 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, such as 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.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for mobile reporting of railroad operations by a computing system, the computing system including one or more processors configured to execute computer program instructions, including: spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions: spawning a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein the first computer process and the second computer process are spawned concurrently, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to concurrently process data to perform the steps of the method for mobile reporting of railroad operations; determining a location, at a mobile device comprising a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a microprocessor, a display, and a wireless communication transceiver, by displaying a course location received by the GPS receiver from a plurality of GPS satellites and receiving a location refinement from a user; refining the location using a user interface configured to display a map and a location icon on the mobile device, wherein refining the location includes: displaying a pin marker indicating a current location on the user interface; receiving user input including dragging the pin marker to a new position to define a refined location; receiving confirmation of the refined location; identifying location data corresponding to the refined location; and auto-populating a location field using the location data corresponding to the refined location; reporting temporary and permanent remedial actions, root causes, measurements, methods of repair, and photos and/or notes as applicable to various defect types; using a hub design that, in response to the refined location, queries and external network- based server for user work within a predetermined distance of the refined location; and presents the user work within the predetermined distance grouped by proximity in the user interface; embedding, in the user interface, training components relevant to a current task, wherein the training components are retrieved based on one or more of the user's department or gang and the current task, and wherein the training components are for display concurrent with the user work within the predetermined distance; geo-coding track safety information; and automatically reporting track inspection work orders.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “spawning a … computer process”, “automatically reporting track inspection work orders”, “queries and external network-based server”, “at a mobile device comprising a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a microprocessor, a display, and a wireless communication transceiver”, “by displaying a course location received by the GPS receiver from a plurality of GPS satellites using a user interface configured to display a map and a location icon on the mobile device”, “displaying a pin marker…dragging the pin marker…auto-populating a location field”, “using a hub design that shows user work around the location”, “geo-coding track safety information”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 21 do not integrate the abstract ideas recited into a practical application by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites “a project file in a structured format”, “wirelessly transmitting the project file to a gang client device”.
Claim 7 additionally recites “displaying a first distance range…a second distance range along the segment of track”.
Claim 8 recites “positive train control (PTC) data”.
Claim 10 recites “digitally assigning user information to the railway asset repair”.
Claims 6-8, 10 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above. Claims 16-18, 20 and 26-28, 30 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claims 6-8, 10.
Claims 2-5, 9, 12-15, 19, 22-25, 29 do not recite additional elements beyond what can be found in Claims from which they are dependent, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent 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 elements amount to [type of exception] and are well-understood and routine activities.
Claims 11 and 21 do not integrate the abstract ideas recited into a practical application by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites “a project file in a structured format”, “wirelessly transmitting the project file to a gang client device”.
Claim 7 additionally recites “displaying a first distance range…a second distance range along the segment of track”.
Claim 8 recites “positive train control (PTC) data”.
Claim 10 recites “digitally assigning user information to the railway asset repair”.
Claims 6-8, 10 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above. Claims 16-18, 20 and 26-28, 30 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claims 6-8, 10.
Claims 2-5, 9, 12-15, 19, 22-25, 29 do not recite additional elements beyond what can be found in Claims from which they are dependent, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,6-7,9-11,13,16-17,19-21,23,26-27,29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin(US 20190012627 A1) in view of Chen(WO2022095014A1) in further view of Bates(US 20210018542 A1).
Claims 1, 11, 21
Martin teaches:
A method for mobile reporting of railroad operations by a computing system, the computing system including one or more processors configured to execute computer program instructions, including:spawning a first computer process configured to execute a first set of computer program instructions:spawning a second computer process configured to execute a second set of computer program instructions, wherein the first computer process and the second computer process are spawned concurrently, wherein a combination of the first set of computer program instructions and the second set of computer program instructions is configured to concurrently process data to perform the steps of the method for mobile reporting of railroad operations,
In [0025], “FIG. 1 is a diagram of an exemplary engineering asset management (EAM) system 100 embodying the principles of the present invention. EAM system 100 includes a Backend System 101, which may be based, for example, on one or more servers, a network of servers, one or more mainframe computers, a network of personal computers, or any combination of these hardware platforms. Backend hardware system supports an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software system 102, along with associated ERP database 103 and a gateway 104 and associated local database 105. In the illustrated embodiment, ERP database 103, which is a Microsoft SQL 2010, SAP HANA, or equivalent database, is managed by a relational database management system (RDBMS)”. It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the idea of “spawning” a computer process is a plain description of how a generic operating system running on a generic computer balances different processes that need to run on the same time. This can reasonably be said to be implicitly performed by a generic computer, and so we consider this limitation to be disclosed by either the distributed backend, in which processes can be run across multiple devices, or a single server balancing multiple processes running concurrently.
including: determining a location, at a mobile device comprising a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a microprocessor, a display, and a wireless communication transceiver,
In [0005] "According to another embodiment of the present principles, a railroad asset inspection management system is disclosed, which includes a plurality of remote terminals each including a user interface for presenting received inspection work orders and inputting railroad asset inspection information. Each remote terminal also includes a local database for storing the received inspection work orders, assets, defects (notifications), the associated metadata for these objects, and the input railroad asset inspection information. Each remote terminal is also able to measure a global positioning system (GPS) position and display the terminal's current location relative to at least one railroad asset". In [0006], "A server communicating with the remote terminal identifies a mapped feature within a predetermined distance of the measured GPS position and finds coordinates of a point on the mapped feature nearest to the measured GPS position. The server may then determine a milepost for the coordinates of the point on the mapped feature nearest to the measured GPS position and associates that GPS position with attributes of the mapped feature. The remote terminal may then present the remote terminal position on a visual representation on the user interface at the point on the mapped feature nearest to the measured GPS position, along with the attributes of the mapped feature and the milepost". In [0111], " FIG. 600 of FIG. 6A illustrates a preferred procedure 600, executed on a Remote Terminal 111, which allows the nearest line segment, mile post, track type, and track number to be determined for a given asset. Using this information, the asset can be accurately placed on the rail network depicted in the geo map. At Block 601, the GPS location for the asset is taken using GPS Receiver 115 of Remote Terminal 111. GPS Receiver 115 can be stationary or in motion".
by displaying a course location received by the GPS receiver from a plurality of GPS satellites
In [0005], 'Each remote terminal is also able to measure a global positioning system (GPS) position and display the terminal's current location relative to at least one railroad asset".
and receiving a location refinement from a user ; refining the location using a user interface configured to display a map and a location icon on the mobile device, wherein refining the location includes: … identifying location data corresponding to the refined location;
In [0100], "The Dashboard (Block 502) allows the end user of Remote Terminal 111 to access GIS (Geographical Information System) information during either online or offline operation. In the preferred embodiment of EAM System 100, this geo map information is selected, at Block 561, from either map view data (Block 560), track charts (Block 562), or street view data (Block 563). (Alternatively, the map view can be accessed at Blocks 502, 521, 523, 531, 533, 541, or 543. In addition, differing presentations of the map data are available at 562 and 563.) The geo map information is navigated using a table of contents (Block 564), a legend provided with each accessed map or map segment (Block 565), and asset/inspection flyouts (Block 566)". We consider the particular location to be a refined location, the information associated with it to be the location data, and the location field to be the area whose information and map segment is rendered.
and auto-populating a location field using the location data corresponding to the refined location;
Note the display of coordinates, which we consider to be a particular location field, corresponding to a map view, in [0101], “FIG. 5D shows an exemplary geo map displayed on the screen of a Remote Terminal 111, which includes a legend 565, a flyout 566, and an asset locator 567. Legend 565 includes controls (e.g., rotate map), status information (e.g., GPS status), and information describing the presented view. In this example, the view is referenced to Line Segment (LS) 50, Mile Post 37.72610, on Main Track 0, at Latitude 48.0352 and Longitude −122.184. An identifier 567 including the identifier (main track 0), line segment and mile post is provided on the map itself.”
reporting temporary and permanent remedial actions, root causes, measurements, methods of repair, and photos and/or notes as applicable to various defect types;
In [0092], "From the Dashboard (Block 502), the end user accesses Notifications at Block 530, which presents a list of Notifications (Block 531), with filtering provided by a flyout at Block 532...A Notification may include such information such as a description of an event or asset condition, the start point (beginning mile post), the endpoint (ending mile post), notification notes, one or more defect codes, and remedial action take or to be taken". In [0097], "In the example shown in FIG. 5B, a list 545a is provided for selecting between inspection notes, track geometry measurements, track geometry calculations, crosstie inspections, rail measurements, joint inspections, road crossing inspection, and rail defects". In [0081], " In the case of inspections, User Interface 113 on each Remote Terminal 111 relates disparate information regarding physical assets, pending and historical inspections, and defects previously recorded regarding an asset". In [0006], " The system also includes a server having a server database for storing railroad asset inspection information and inspection work orders of a railroad network and the server operable to synchronize the local database of a selected remote terminal with the server database when the selected remote terminal establishes a connection with the server".
using a hub design that, in response to the refined location, queries and external network- based server for user work
In [0006], "The system also includes a server having a server database for storing railroad asset inspection information and inspection work orders of a railroad network and the server operable to synchronize the local database of a selected remote terminal with the server database when the selected remote terminal establishes a connection with the server". In [0032], " In the preferred embodiment of EAM 100, data are exchanged between Backend System 101 and Remote Terminals 111 using the Open Data Protocol (OData), which supports REST (Representational State Transfer) architectures such as HTTP and HTTPS. Generally, OData services use basic HTTP requests (e.g., Get, Patch, Post, Delete) from clients to resources identified by URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). Under the OData protocol, the payload of requests and responses are represented in the Atom Publishing Protocol (AtomPub) format, Extended Mark-up Language (XML) format, or the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format". We can get this OData in 0046 In [0069],"Backend System 101 tracks changes to the identified entities and sends a notification to Gateway 104, which forwards the notification to MobiLink Server 208 as an OData AtomPub or JSON document. MobiLink Server 208 forwards the notifications to the appropriate remote terminals 111 in XML or JSON". Fig. 5E discloses a hub design to render this data to the user.
within a predetermined distance of the refined location and presents the user work within the predetermined distance grouped by proximity in the user interface;
In [0112], “At Block 602, asset features stored as GIS data in Local Database 114 of Remote Terminal 111 are queried with a spatial buffer to identify previously mapped features within a predetermined distance of the GPS measurement point, which in the preferred embodiment is 25 feet. In the example shown in FIG. 6B, the assets are two parallel railroad tracks represented by two polylines as features”. The larger Procedure under which this takes place, Procedure 600 of Fig. 6A, sorts assets based on proximity, at step 607 of Fig. 6A, and presents pertinent information at step 608. Particular issues are associated with assets, in [0007], “each of which presents critical information such as location, required inspection steps, and the state and history of the asset being inspected”. We understand the display of assets to encompass particular work tasks; looking at Fig. 5E, we can see the status of various inspections.
geo-coding track safety information;
In [0073], "Representative signal assets include crossing warning devices, wayside signals, hazard and train defect detectors, polelines, auto train stops, enclosures, and signal turnout components (e.g., switches, snow melting equipment)". In [0078], "EAM System 100 advantageously combines the recording of data taken during operations in the field with geospatial location information". In [0079], "EAM System 100 supports a Signal Inspections System, Track Inspection Systems, Structures Inspection System, a Roadway Inspections System, and the inspection of critical shop equipment. The Signals Inspections System allows inspectors to inspect signal assets, log of hours of service, and manage documents".
and automatically reporting track inspection work orders.
In [0006], we have the automatic sending of inspection work reports to remote terminals disclosed, "The system also includes a server having a server database for storing railroad asset inspection information and inspection work orders of a railroad network and the server operable to synchronize the local database of a selected remote terminal with the server database when the selected remote terminal establishes a connection with the server".
Martin does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Chen teaches:
wherein refining the location includes: displaying a pin marker indicating a current location on the user interface;
Note the drone icons and the correspondence between their display on the map model and their location in [0042], “The control terminal can establish connections with multiple drones and obtain the location information of each drone. The location of each drone can be marked on the map model by drone icons. The control terminal can also mark each plot area on the map model based on the location information of each plot area”.
receiving user input including dragging the pin marker to a new position to define a refined location; receiving confirmation of the refined location;
We consider user input to be the dragging as claimed, and the confirmation to be the release in the selected location in [0047], “Users can associate drones with selected plots of land by manipulating the drone icon or the selected plot area. In one implementation, a user can associate a drone with a selected plot of land by dragging the drone icon to that plot. Specifically, it can capture the user's touch and drag operations on the first drone icon. When the first drone icon is dragged to a position that overlaps with the first selected plot area and then released, the first drone can be associated with the first selected plot area”.
Martin discloses a system meant to manage inspections and faults associated with a railway system. Chen discloses a system of assigning and managing vehicles in transit, particularly in view of the map based solution of assignment and control. Each reference discloses means of leveraging graphical user interfaces to assign tasks. Extending the drag and drop method of Chen is applicable to Martin as both pertain to the graphical user interface solution to task assignment and management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the guided prompts as taught in Bates and apply that to the system of Martin. The rationale to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the simple substitution of one means of interfacing with the graphical user interface. [0100-0101] in Martin describes various means of selecting a particular map segment and rendering associated data. [0047] of Chen teaches an alternative means of doing so. At the time the invention was effectively filed, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the “drag and drop” means of control of Chen for the selection through menu and other icons of Martin. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Martin combined with Chen does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Bates teaches:
embedding, in the user interface, training components relevant to a current task, wherein the training components are retrieved based on one or more of the user's department or gang and the current task,
user work; and wherein the training components are for display concurrent with the user work within the predetermined distance;
In accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation with the claim, we understand the limitation “one or more of the user’s department or gang and the current task” to be disclosed by factoring in task-relevant details. In [0139], “FIG. 6 is an exemplary view of a graphical user interface 600 of an electrical condition monitoring system that depicts suggestions to a fault detected in an electrical device (e.g. belt drive) in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The graphical user interface 600 shows a family of possible peaks (e.g. local maxima) corresponding to a phenomenon (e.g. fault/problem). The graphical user interface 600 provides a description, a cause and an effect of a fault detected in a belt drive. For example, the description provides information associated with faults/problems detected in the belt drive. The description indicates that the problem/fault detected in the belt drive is due to poor installation or an adjustment (e.g. incorrect alignment), excessive loads or incorrect tensioning in the belt drive”.
Bates discloses a system for managing faults associated with electrical devices, including railway vehicles as outlined in [0061]. Martin combined with Chen discloses a system meant to manage inspections and faults associated with a railway system. Each reference discloses means to manage faults with respect to mechanical devices. Extending the guided error management as recorded in Bates is applicable to Martin combined with Chen as both pertain to the management of faults in the context of mechanical systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the guided prompts as taught in Bates and apply that to the system of Martin combined with Chen. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the guided error management of Bates would enable users to easily access instructions on how to resolve faults.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 3, 13, 23
As to Claim 3, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Martin teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising automatically reporting all track inspection work orders.
In [0006], we have the automatic sending of inspection work reports to remote terminals disclosed, "The system also includes a server having a server database for storing railroad asset inspection information and inspection work orders of a railroad network and the server operable to synchronize the local database of a selected remote terminal with the server database when the selected remote terminal establishes a connection with the server".
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 3.
Claims 6, 16, 26
As to Claim 6, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Martin teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising locally storing a project file in a structured format and wirelessly transmitting the project file to a gang client device.
In [0006], "The system also includes a server having a server database for storing railroad asset inspection information and inspection work orders of a railroad network and the server operable to synchronize the local database of a selected remote terminal with the server database when the selected remote terminal establishes a connection with the server". In [0028], "Remote Terminals 111 connect to Network 110 through corresponding set of communications links 112, which may be, in whole or in part, conventional hardwired communications links such as DSL, or conventional wireless communications links such as WiFi links, wireless wide area network (WAN) links, or cellular telephone links". In [0085], "When an inspector works offline, the information displayed on User Interface 113 of the Remote Terminal 111 is generated from the current data within Local Database 114. Data input by the inspector through User Interface 113 is stored in Local Database 114. When the inspector re-connects to Network 110, the data with in Local Database 114 and the corresponding territory partition within Local Database 109 associated with MobiLink Server 109 are synchronized. Those data are then exchanged with ECC 101 through Gateway 104, which performs authentication and applies security procedures".
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 6.
Claims 7, 17, 27
As to Claim 7, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Martin teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising displaying a first distance range and a second distance range along the segment of track. Looking at the specification, with reference to Fig. 16, it is shown that this feature is utilized to "Display the first distance range and the second distance range, as applicable", along a particular line segment of track. In line with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, we therefore consider the ability to render multiple assets that span particular ranges across a segment to anticipate this. Looking at the Fig. 5F of Martin, showing a particular Track Chart, we can analyze a range of information across a given Line Segment(represented as LS:3 and MP:262.622 at the top right corner of the screen). This enables us to display a plurality of distance ranges for analysis by the user at a remote terminal. In [0104], " An example of a track chart displayed on a Remote Terminal 111 is shown in FIG. 5F. Track charts generally show engineering details such as physical state, grade, track configuration, stations, bridges, grade crossings, rail yards, structures, speed limits, signals, rails, and ties". Further, in [0108], "The preferred embodiment of EAM System 100 uses linear referencing during the generation of the geo maps displayed on Remote Terminals 111. With linear referencing, assets are mapped on the track network based on their GPS coordinates or line segment/mile post (LS/MP)". Examining Figure 5E, we can see such a geo map being displayed to the user. We can examine multiple assets simultaneously, and if they are to be mapped with their precise coordinates and line segment/mile post, the ability to view these assets, spanning their particular ranges, along a segment is facilitated here.
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 7.
Claims 9, 19, 29
As to Claim 9, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Martin teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a project corresponding to a rail, a ballast, or at least one railway tie.
In [0070], "FIG. 3 shows a particular embodiment of EAM System 100, which is described in detail below in conjunction with FIG. 4. FIG. 4 is a diagram showing, the BNSF Railway Company rail network, which is representative of rail networks to which EAM System 100 may suitably be applied. The exemplary rail network shown in FIG. 4 generally gives an indication of geographical area over which assets must be maintained, inspected, and repaired". Given that In [0071], "Railroad system assets can generally be categorized as track, signals, structures, and roadway equipment". Given that in [0081], "In addition, EAM System 100 creates electronic inspection records that include quantifiable measurement information obtained during the course of each inspection and associates those records with precise geographical location information", we understand the inspector flagging such assets for repair to encompass the idea of generating a project. In [0072], possible assets are elaborated upon, including "Track assets include, among other things, main track, sidings, back tracks, industry tracks, curves, derails, rail crossings, control points, left rail and right rail, road crossings, turnouts, yards, insulated joints, bumping posts, gauge rods, right of way fences, signs, and non-turnout guard rails". Finally, in [0075], "In addition, precise and current information must be maintained on linear characteristics including speeds, types of operations, supervisor boundaries, primary routes, subdivision and key routes, FRA Class, tonnage, inspector territories, rail, and ties".
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 9.
Claims 10, 20, 30
As to Claim 10, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 above.
Martin teaches:
The method of Claim 9, further comprising generating the project corresponding to the rail to compensate for railway asset repair including digitally assigning user information to the railway asset repair.
In [0077], "In order to manage such a substantial number of widely distributed assets, EAM System 100 must process on the order of fifteen million (Ser. No. 15/000,000) electronic records. Furthermore, the exchange of data between a railroad home office and inspectors, maintenance teams, and other personnel in the field is challenging, given the wide distribution of personnel and assets. For example, the home office must send inspection orders to inspectors in the field and those inspectors must record and return inspection results to the home office. The assets requiring inspections must be precisely identified". This list of outstanding inspections is depicted in Figure 5B, with particular associated work order IDs depicted in Figure 5C. In [0093-0096], "Inspections are accessed from Dashboard 502 at Block 540, where the inspector can bring up a list at Block 541. From the list, the inspector can access a flyout for filtering the listed inspections (Block 542, FIG. 5A). FIG. 5B depicts an exemplary Inspection screen including a list of track inspections outstanding (i.e., 11 main track inspections, 222 joint inspections, and 187 turnout inspections), as well as inspections in progress (i.e. 1) and completed inspections (i.e., 158). Contact on the window corresponding to an inspection type generates the flyout. Once a selection is made using the flyout, an Inspection screen is presented under an Inspections Header (Block 543). The inspection header may include information identifying the asset to be inspected and the inspection due date. FIG. 5C illustrates a representative inspection screen appearing for the inspection of a siding track, in this case Inspection Header 543 identifies the asset as Siding Track 0798 associated with the Lowell Station and located on Line Segment (LS) 37 between begin milepost (BMP) 4.02762 and end milepost 4.38987. The due date for the inspection is Jun. 1, 2016. The inspector uses the inspection screen appearing under Inspection Header 543 to input information during the course of the inspection. At Block 544, the inspector inputs completed inspection details such as inspection status, begin milepost, ending milepost, inspection type, inspection method, inspection reason, start time and date, duration and whether a road master is present.".
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 10.
Claims 2,12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin(US 20190012627 A1) in view of Chen(WO2022095014A1) in further view of Bates(US 20210018542 A1) in further view of Miyajima(US 20160046307 A1).
Claims 2, 12, 22
As to Claim 2, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Martin combined with Chen and Bates does not teach:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising generating automated estimated time of arrival with turn-by-turn directions, asset specific or GPS pinpoint location accuracy, close out codes, and photo/notes. However, Miyajima teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising generating automated estimated time of arrival with turn-by-turn directions, asset specific or GPS pinpoint location accuracy, close out codes, and photo/notes.
In [0080], "Note that the arrival scheduled platform data, the traveling direction data, the traveling route data and the traveling line data can be called travel schedule data showing a schedule of travel of the train". In [0100], "The on-board device 10 (the different train state checking section 72) of the train 2A inquires the train related data to the on-board device 10 of the different train 2B (Step S3). The on-board device 10 (the different train state checking section 72) of the train 2A stores the data in the storage unit 12 (Step S5). The train related data contains the traveling permission limit position data, the arrival scheduled platform data, the traveling direction data, the traveling route data, the traveling line data, and the operation mode data (the traveling route request time data, and the train position data)". In this example, the traveling direction and route data analogizes to the turn-by-turn directions with asset specific accuracy. The notes would correspond to details such as train position data. Given the examples of "close out codes" in [0055] of the application as denoting particular issues with assets, we take the traveling line data and operation mode data to analogize to this. In [0107], "The next destination of the train 2B (the station 3) can be checked based on the arrival scheduled platform data, the traveling direction data, the traveling route data, and the traveling line data", which discloses the generation of estimated time of arrivals.
Miyajima discloses a system for querying information from live train vehicles to collect train-related data. Martin combined with Chen and Bates discloses a system meant to collect railroad asset data. Each reference discloses a system for managing and collecting railroad related data. Extending the collection of train related data as recorded in Miyajima to the asset management system as disclosed in Martin combined with Chen and Bates is applicable as they both pertain to the analogous problem of data collection with respect to railroad assets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the route monitoring methodology as taught in Miyajima and apply that to the system as taught in Martin combined with Chen and Bates. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit of adapting Miyajima to Martin combined with Chen and Bates would enrich inspection data and enable inspectors to have live data regarding train operations with more detail.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 2.
Claims 4-5,14-15,24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin(US 20190012627 A1) in view of Chen(WO2022095014A1) in further view of Bates(US 20210018542 A1) in further view of Bilodeau(US 10167003 B1).
Claims 4, 14, 24
As to Claim 4, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Martin combined with Chen and Bates does not teach:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a max ambient temperature forecasted based on a project location.
However, Bilodeau teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a max ambient temperature forecasted based on a project location.
In Col 15, Lines 14-19, "As shown in FIG. 26, graphs of the neutral temperature 123, the rail temperature 124, and the ambient temperature 125 over time may be displayed for each of the displayed rails. The force on the rail 126 may also be displayed, if desired". The maximum would be plainly accessible from viewing these graphs per the axes on the right.
Bilodeau teaches a system for automating the inspection of rail assets. Martin combined with Chen and Bates discloses a system meant to collect railroad asset data across inspections. Each reference discloses a system for managing and collecting railroad related data. Extending the system as recorded in Martin combined with Chen and Bates to perform the measurements of Bilodeau is applicable as they pertain to the problem of streamlining the collection of railroad inspection data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to adapt the method for automating the derivation of rail neutral temperature and measuring of temperature as taught in Bilodeau and apply that to the monitoring system as taught in Martin combined with Chen and Bates. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the method of Bilodeau would enable users to have streamlined access to tasks relevant for the status of the rails, namely rail neutral temperature. In Col 9 Lines 6-12 of Bilodeau, “The rail's tendency to change length represents a significant safety problem, because if the internal compressive forces on the rail become too great, the rail can buckle or kink (sun kinks). If the tensile forces become too great, the rail can crack and pull apart. Either condition jeopardizes the safety of normal train operations, and in some situations can lead to catastrophic train derailments.”.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claims 5, 15, 25
As to Claim 5, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Martin combined with Chen and Bates does not teach:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising estimating a rail neutral temperature (RNT) based on a change in rail length, length of unrestrained rail, a coefficient of expansion, and a track neutral temperature (TNT).
However, Bilodeau teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising estimating a rail neutral temperature (RNT) based on a change in rail length, length of unrestrained rail, a coefficient of expansion, and a track neutral temperature (TNT).
For the purposes of calibration, we use the change in rail length and length of unrestrained rail, when undergoing expansion or contraction, can be used to estimate rail neutral temperature. In Col 9 Lines 45-57, "If calibration is required, any appropriate method now known or hereafter developed for placing a rail at a known neutral temperature or measuring the neutral temperature of an existing rail can be used for calibration. Normally, the rail is simply placed at a known neutral temperature by cutting and re-welding it so that it is not in compression or tension. The current rail temperature is then the neutral temperature of the rail that can be used for calibration. If necessary, there are also ways to measure the neutral temperature of an existing rail, however. For example, one method involves cutting the rail to determine the distance it expands or contracts, and then from this information, calculating its initial neutral temperature". In Col 10 Lines 59-64, "If calibration is required, any appropriate method now known or hereafter developed for placing a rail at a known neutral temperature or measuring the neutral temperature of an existing rail can be used for calibration. Normally, the rail is simply placed at a known neutral temperature by cutting and re-welding it so that it is not in compression or tension. The current rail temperature is then the neutral temperature of the rail that can be used for calibration. If necessary, there are also ways to measure the neutral temperature of an existing rail, however. For example, one method involves cutting the rail to determine the distance it expands or contracts, and then from this information, calculating its initial neutral temperature".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to adapt the method for automating the derivation of rail neutral temperature and measuring of temperature as taught in Bilodeau and apply that to the monitoring system as taught in Martin combined with Chen and Bates. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the same expected benefit as outlined with respect to Claim 4.
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 5.
Claims 8,18,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin(US 20190012627 A1) in view of Chen(WO2022095014A1) in further view of Bates(US 20210018542 A1) in further view of Morris(US 20120116616 A1).
Claims 8, 18, 28
As to Claim 8, Martin combined with Chen and Bates teaches all the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above.
Martin combined with Chen and Bates does not teach:
The method of Claim 7, further comprising measuring the first distance range and the second distance range based on a railway centerline from positive train control (PTC) data.
However, Morris teaches:
The method of Claim 7, further comprising measuring the first distance range and the second distance range based on a railway centerline from positive train control (PTC) data.
In [0048], "Referring to FIG. 2, a PTC vision system may include one or more of the following: Data Aggregation Platform (DAP) 215, Vision Apparatus (VA) 230, Positive Train Control Computer (PTCC) 210, Human Machine Interface (HMI) 205, GPS Receiver 225, and the Vehicular Communication Device (VCD) 220, typically communicating via LAN or WAN communications network 240". In [0148], "A map becomes “semantic” when the semantic associations between different objects and layers are also recorded. For example, a map composed of the centerlines of various lanes on a roadway as well as the signs located around the infrastructure is labeled semantic, when the associations between the various signs and centerlines are recorded. This can be achieved by creating a mapping between the unique identifier of a sign and the unique identifiers of the lanes to which the sign is relevant. The semanticization of a map creates more context for the vehicle or user consuming the map. The semantic map can also be packaged with regulatory information from various transportation authorities". The information associated between centerlines and signs analogize to the monitoring of assets in Martin; we have provided that in [0072] of Martin, "Track assets include, among other things, main track, sidings, back tracks, industry tracks, curves, derails, rail crossings, control points, left rail and right rail, road crossings, turnouts, yards, insulated joints, bumping posts, gauge rods, right of way fences, signs, and non-turnout guard rails". Keeping with our logic of Claim 7 as the display of ranges along a given segment being anticipated by the display of assets along a given segment, this claim is thus disclosed.
Martin combined with Chen and Bates discloses a system meant to collect railroad asset data across inspections and manage defects. Morris teaches a system meant to determine and receive train car data. Each reference discloses a system for managing and collecting railroad related data. Extending the system as recorded in Martin combined with Chen and Bates to include the means for collecting train car data as taught in Morris, is applicable to as they both pertain to the task of collecting railroad asset data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to implement the means for monitoring train lengths, as taught in Morris, to the system of Martin combined with Chen and Bates. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit of adapting Morris to Martin combined with Bates would enrich inspection data and enable inspectors to have data regarding train operations with more detail.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights