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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seenumani et al. (US PG Pub No. 2024/0025462), hereinafter “Seenumani”, in view of Mathews, Jr. et al. (US PG Pub No. 2019/0106133), hereinafter “Mathews”.
Regarding claim 1, Seenumani discloses a system (Fig. 1 (vehicle system 102)), comprising: a scheduling module (Fig. 1 (off-board control system 114)) at a railroad network coordinator configured to generate an initial movement plan and a modified movement plan for at least a first train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (first vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)) and a second train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (second vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)) to operate on a track within a railroad network (paragraphs 17 and 18 (plural waypoint locations along one or more routes)) during a time period, the initial movement plan including a first pacing schedule (pacing trip plan for first vehicle) for the first train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (first vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)) and a second pacing schedule (pacing trip plan for second vehicle) for the second train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (second vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)); the scheduling module (Fig. 1 (off-board control system 114)) comprising: a train-level pacing module configured to determine: first time-window data for the first train comprising a first earliest arrival time (EAT), a first latest time of arrival (LTA), and a first estimated time of departure (ETD) at a siding along the track for the first pacing schedule under the initial movement plan, and second time-window data for the second train comprising a second EAT, a second LTA, and a second ETD at the siding for the second pacing schedule (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79), wherein the scheduling module is configured to: cause the first time-window data to be delivered to the first train, receive first compliance feedback from the first train and a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first train at the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79), cause the second time-window data to be delivered to the second train, and receive second compliance feedback from the second train and a second ETA of the second train at the siding (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79); and a territory-level pacing module configured, in response to at least one of the first compliance feedback or the second compliance feedback indicating the respective first train or second train will not comply with the respective first time-window data or second time-window data, to generate a modified first pacing schedule or a modified second pacing schedule as part of the modified movement plan (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79); one or more processors (one or more processors: Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 20, 25, 27, 73, 75, 78-80), within the network coordinator, configured to execute the scheduling module to generate the initial movement plan and the modified movement plan; and a network interface (Fig. 1 (communication system 104)) configured to communicate the first time-window data and the first compliance feedback between the scheduling module (Fig. 1 (off-board control system 114)) and the first train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (first vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)) and to communicate the second time-window data and the second compliance feedback between the scheduling module and the second train (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79).
Seenumani fails to disclose that the modified movement plan positions one of the first train or the second train within the siding while another of the first train or the second train passes the siding on the track.
However, Mathews discloses a modified movement plan that positions one of the first train or the second train within the siding while another of the first train or the second train passes the siding on the track (Mathews (paragraphs 35, 55, 74)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the invention of Seenumani by incorporating the teachings of Mathews in order to comply with trip schedules in a more efficient manner while increasing safety.
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a network-level pacing module configured, in response to the modified second pacing schedule generated by the territory-level pacing module, to identify that the second train will not cross a boundary from a first territory to a second territory within the railroad network during an arrival window identified in the initial movement plan (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the network-level pacing module is further configured, in response to identifying that the second train will not cross the boundary during the arrival window, to further change the modified second pacing schedule as part of the modified movement plan to cross the boundary within the arrival window (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the train-level pacing module is further configured to generate the modified first pacing schedule based at least in part on the first ETA (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the modified first pacing schedule includes a new ETD for the first train to depart the siding for the modified movement plan (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the train-level pacing module is further configured to determine additional time-window data for the first train to arrive at additional sidings along the track for the initial movement plan, wherein the train-level pacing module is further configured to cause the additional time-window data to be delivered to the first train (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the train-level pacing module is further configured to determine other time-window data for the second train to arrive at the siding for the initial movement plan, wherein the train-level pacing module is further configured to cause the other time-window data to be delivered to the second train (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by one or more processors (one or more processors: Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 20, 25, 27, 73, 75, 78-80), an initial movement plan for trains within at least a first territory of a railroad network (paragraphs 17 and 18 (plural waypoint locations along one or more routes)), the initial movement plan including a first pacing schedule (pacing trip plan for first vehicle) for a first train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (first vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)) and a second pacing schedule (pacing trip plan for second vehicle) for a second train (paragraphs 18 and 57 (second vehicle system such as a rail vehicle or locomotive)), the first train and the second train sharing a track (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79); identifying, by the one or more processors, a meet-and-pass for the first train and the second train at a siding of the track (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79); calculating, by the one or more processors, first timing data defining a first time window, the first time window defining a first earliest arrival time (EAT), a first latest time of arrival (LTA), and a first estimated time of departure (ETD) for the first train at the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79]); calculating, by the one or more processors, second timing data defining a second time window, the second time window defining a second earliest arrival time (EAT), a second latest time of arrival (LTA), and a second estimated time of departure (ETD) for the second train at the siding, wherein the first timing data and the second timing data position one of the first train or the second train within the siding during the meet-and-pass while the other of the first train or the second train passes the siding (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79); causing the first timing data to be sent to the first train (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79]) and the second timing data to be sent to the second train; receiving, by the one or more processors, first compliance feedback from the first train, and second compliance feedback from the second train, at least one of the first compliance feedback or the second compliance feedback indicating that the respective first train or second train will not comply with the respective first timing data (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79]) or second timing data; at least in response to the first compliance feedback and the second compliance feedback, generating, by the one or more processors, a modified movement plan, wherein the modified movement plan positions one of the first train or the second train within the siding during the meet-and-pass (Mathews (paragraphs 35, 55, 74)) while another of the first train or the second train passes the siding; causing the modified movement plan to be sent to the first train and the second train; receiving, by the one or more processors, third compliance feedback from at least one of the first train or the second train, the third compliance feedback indicating that the respective first train or second train will comply with the modified movement plan (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79); and causing, by the one or more processors, the first train and the second train to proceed according to the modified movement plan (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: before generating the modified movement plan, receiving from the first train, by the one or more processors, a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the first train at the siding; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the first ETA will require modification of the second pacing schedule (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, a modified second pacing schedule; and sending to the second train, by the one or more processors, new timing data defining a new time window, the new time window defining a new EAT and a new LTA for the second train at the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, actual travel data from the second train, the actual travel data indicating an actual ETA and an actual LTA for the second train (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the new timing data comprises a new ETD for the second train to depart the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the modified movement plan comprises a first modified ETD for the first train to depart the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein a crossing time window defines a time period under the initial movement plan for the first train to arrive at a boundary between the first territory and a second territory in the railroad network, the method further comprising: before generating the modified movement plan, determining, by the one or more processors, that the first train will arrive at the boundary outside the crossing time window under the modified movement plan; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the first pacing schedule will require modification (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which are executable by one or more processors and which, when executed, cause the one or more processors (one or more processors: Abstract; paragraphs 5, 7, 20, 25, 27, 73, 75, 78-80) to: generate an initial movement plan for trains within at least a first territory of a railroad network, the initial movement plan including a first pacing schedule for a first train and a second pacing schedule for a second train, the first train and the second train sharing a track (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79]); calculate first timing data defining a time window for movement of the first train at a siding on the track, the time window defining a first earliest arrival time (EAT) a first latest time of arrival (LTA), and a first estimated time of departure (ETD) for the first train at the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79); calculate second timing data defining a second time window, the second time window defining a second earliest arrival time (EAT), a second latest time of arrival (LTA), and a second estimated time of departure (ETD) for the second train at the siding, wherein the first timing data and the second timing data position one of the first train or the second train within the siding during the meet-and-pass while the other of the first train or the second train passes the siding (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79); cause the first timing data to be sent to the first train (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79) and the second timing data to be sent to the second train; receive first compliance feedback from the first train, and second compliance feedback from the second train, at least one of the first compliance feedback or the second compliance feedback indicating that the respective first train or second train will not comply with the respective first timing data or second timing data (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79]); at least in response to the first compliance feedback and the second compliance feedback, generate a modified movement plan (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79), wherein the modified movement plan positions one of the first train or the second train within the siding during a meet-and-pass (Mathews (paragraphs 35, 55, 74)) while the other of the first train or the second train passes the siding; cause the modified movement plan to be sent to the first train and the second train; receive third compliance feedback from at least one of the first train or the second train, the third compliance feedback indicating that the respective first train or second train will comply with the modified movement plan (paragraphs 31, 33, 40, 42-44, 49-51, 54, 62-64, 74, 79); and cause the first train and the second train to proceed according to the modified movement plan (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having further instructions stored thereupon to: before generating the modified movement plan, receive from the first train a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the first train at the siding; and determine that the first ETA will require modification of the second pacing schedule (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 17, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having further instructions stored thereupon to: generate a modified second pacing schedule; and send movement goals to the second train, the movement goals defining a new EAT and a new LTA for the second train at the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having further instructions stored thereupon to: receive a response from the second train, the response indicating actual travel data indicating an actual ETA and an actual LTA for the second train (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the movement goals comprise a new ETD for the second train to depart the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Regarding claim 20, the modified invention of Seenumani discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the modified movement plan comprises a first modified ETD for the first train to depart the siding (Figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 31-34, 40-44, 48-55, 61-70, 75, 79).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ remarks filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive.
Applicants contend that the combination of Seenumani et al. (US PG Pub No. 2024/0025462), hereinafter “Seenumani”, in view of Mathews, Jr. et al. (US PG Pub No. 2019/0106133), hereinafter “Mathews” fails to disclose a second time-window data to be delivered to the second train, and receive a second compliance feedback from the second train and a second ETA of the second train at the siding. Examiner submits that the inspection of the present application written specification reveals that the term “compliance feedback” is an indication that a train will or not comply with the arrival times. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the reference of Seenumani discloses a second time-window data to be delivered to the second train, and receive second compliance feedback from the second train and a second ETA of the second train at the siding (paragraphs 40, 43, 48, 51, 61-63, 74, 79). Examiner further submits that as can be seen in the rejection above, it is understood that the combination of Seenumani, in view of Mathews teaches all the required limitations as they are claimed by the independent claims of the current application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights