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 Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/311,628, filed on 03 May 2023, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claim 8.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102, see REMARKS, filed 15 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Nagasawa does not teach “store at least some of the received enforcement targets onboard the vehicle as preserved targets having corresponding preserved enforcement activities responsive to a transition from the active state to a degraded state of the vehicle in which two or more enforcement targets are no longer received” and particularly emphasizes “in which two or more enforcement targets are no longer received”. Applicant argues that Nagasawa at S4 branches to S6 when the count value is two or more. At S6, the vehicle stops moving and does not follow a previously received instruction. Therefore, Nagasawa cannot teach that the vehicle follows the stored instruction when two or more enforcement targets are no longer received, as the vehicle stops at S6. However, as indicated by the Examiner in the Detailed Action dated 15 July 2025, Nagasawa further discloses:
[0036] In the present preferred embodiment, a vehicle stops preferably when reception fails in two successive cycles, but the vehicle may stop when reception fails even in one cycle, or when reception fails in 3 or more successive cycles, for example. Also, if an acknowledge signal Ack that acknowledges reception of a report to the controller 4 or reception of an instruction from the controller is not obtained, the communication status can be estimated accordingly. Therefore, this may be included in the detection of communication failure. (Underline added).
Clearly, while Fig. 2 illustrates the specific example correlating to the count value threshold at S4 being 2 or greater, the count value could be 3 or greater, i.e., when reception fails in 3 or more successive cycles, as disclosed above. When the count value threshold is set to be 3 or greater, reception of the instruction at S3 may fail twice and the control will execute S5 twice and then return to S1. Subsequently, a third or more failure will cause the vehicle to be stopped at S6. Accordingly, the degraded state, i.e., failed reception state, occurs when the failed reception count value is 1 after a first execution of S4 or 2 after a second execution of S4. Therefore, Nagasawa teaches a transition from the active state to a degraded state of the vehicle in which two or more enforcement targets are no longer received (i.e., at S5, travel in accordance with the instruction received at S2 after the count value at S4 is 2; count value threshold is 3 or greater as disclosed at ¶ [0036]). Accordingly, the previous rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-20 under § 102 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 4 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103, see REMARKS, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are the same as presented for the rejections under § 102. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons indicated above. The previous rejections of claims 4 and 8-14 under § 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagasawa (US 2013/0197719 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Nagasawa discloses a vehicle system and control method and teaches:
one or more processors configured to be disposed onboard a vehicle and to:
receive, when in an active state of the vehicle in which the system receives instructions from an off-board source, enforcement targets from the off-board source, the enforcement targets associated with corresponding portions of a route to be traversed by the vehicle, the enforcement targets having corresponding associated enforcement activities to be performed based on a location of the vehicle relative to the corresponding portions of the route (at S2, an instruction is received from controller 4 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; ground controller 4 is off-board vehicle 2 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0023]; velocity control points are provided along a travel path – see at least ¶ [0025]; an instruction to be performed by vehicle 2 includes a target velocity to be achieved for the velocity control point– see at least ¶ [0026]);
store at least some of the received enforcement targets onboard the vehicle as preserved targets having corresponding preserved enforcement activities, responsive to a transition from the active state to a degraded state of the vehicle in which two or more enforcement targets are no longer received (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; i.e. the instruction is still preserved in the vehicle controller even after communication with controller 4 has failed; count value at S4 may correspond to when reception fails in 3 or more successive cycles, i.e., count value is 3 or greater – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]); and
perform the preserved enforcement activities associated with the preserved targets (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the preserved targets comprise at least one enforcement target for which corresponding enforcement activities have not yet been implemented at the time of the transition to the degraded state (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the preserved targets are stored on a memory responsive to the transition from the active state to the degraded state (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; i.e. when the count threshold is 3, the instruction is still preserved in the vehicle controller even after communication with controller 4 has failed 2 times).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the off-board source of the vehicle includes an off-board memory, the off-board memory configured to store historical information related to portions of the route associated with the degraded state (controller 4 includes status data storage unit 16 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; status data storage unit 16 stores vehicle status of each vehicle 2, including velocity control points through which the vehicle passes and velocity control points through which the vehicle has already passed and the times when the vehicle has passed – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the off-board source of the vehicle is configured to communicate to the one or more processors the portions of the route associated with the degraded state (instruction preparation unit 14 prepares an instruction, including velocity control points, to be performed by the vehicle 2 in the next cycle and communication interface 12 sends the instructions – see at least ¶ [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to store at least some of the received enforcement targets onboard the vehicle as preserved targets having corresponding preserved enforcement activities responsive to receiving the portions of the route associated with the degraded state from the off-board source of the vehicle (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; i.e. when the count threshold is 3, the instruction is still preserved in the vehicle controller even after communication with controller 4 has failed 2 times).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0196426 A1, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 4, Nagasawa fails to teach but Kim discloses transfer of a vehicle control system and teaches:
wherein performing the preserved enforcement activities comprises providing a prompt to an operator of the vehicle onboard the vehicle (if control of the vehicle needs to transfer from the remote-control system 112 to OVCS 114 at 406 based on a condition, such as a communication loss with the remote-control system, one or more of the onboard operator or remote-control operator are notified of the transfer of control – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0046], [0047] and [0054]; notification may be via display 304 or output device 308 changing to a different color, changing to a different display format, sounding a bell, communicating a vocal command, communicating a sound, or the like – see at least ¶ [0054]).
In summary, Nagasawa discloses a vehicle, e.g., a rail-guided vehicle, that can store an instruction received from a remote source in an onboard processor of the vehicle. If communication between the vehicle and the remote source is lost, the vehicle may still execute the instruction stored in the onboard processor. Kim discloses a rail-guided vehicle, i.e., a train. If communication between a vehicle system and remote-control system is lost, an onboard vehicle control system is activated. When the onboard vehicle control system is activated, an onboard vehicle operator and an offboard vehicle operator and may both be notified of the transfer of control via a manipulation of a display or other output device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vehicle system of Nagasawa to provide a prompt to an operator, as taught by Kim, to notify the operator of transfer of control of the vehicle (Kim at ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Nagasawa discloses a vehicle system and control method and teaches:
one or more processors configured to be disposed onboard a vehicle and to:
receive, when in an active state of the vehicle in which the system receives instructions from an off-board source, enforcement targets from the off-board source, the enforcement targets associated with corresponding portions of a route to be traversed by the vehicle, the enforcement targets having corresponding associated enforcement activities to be performed based on a location of the vehicle relative to the corresponding portions of the route (at S2, an instruction is received from controller 4 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; ground controller 4 is off-board vehicle 2 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0023]; velocity control points are provided along a travel path – see at least ¶ [0025]; an instruction to be performed by vehicle 2 includes a target velocity to be achieved for the velocity control point– see at least ¶ [0026]);
store at least some of the received enforcement targets onboard the vehicle as preserved targets having corresponding preserved enforcement activities, responsive to a transition from the active state to a degraded state of the vehicle in which two or more the enforcement targets are no longer received (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; i.e. the instruction is still preserved in the vehicle controller even after communication with controller 4 has failed; count value at S4 may when reception fails in 3 or more successive cycles, i.e., count value is 3 or greater – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]);
wherein the preserved enforcement activities comprise continuing performance of a current enforcement target of the received enforcement target that was being performed as the vehicle transitioned from the active state to the degraded state (instruction preparation unit 14 prepares an instruction, including velocity control points, to be performed by the vehicle 2 in the next cycle and communication interface 12 sends the instructions – see at least ¶ [0026]-[0027]),
[ ].
Nagasawa fails to teach but Kim discloses transfer of a vehicle control system and teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide a prompt to the off-board source responsive to the transition from the active state to the degraded state (if control of the vehicle needs to transfer from the remote-control system 112 to OVCS 114 at 406 based on a condition, such as a communication loss with the remote-control system, one or more of the onboard operator or remote-control operator are notified of the transfer of control – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0046], [0047] and [0054]; notification may be via display 304 or output device 308 changing to a different color, changing to a different display format, sounding a bell, communicating a vocal command, communicating a sound, or the like – see at least ¶ [0054]).
In summary, Nagasawa discloses a vehicle, e.g., a rail-guided vehicle, that can store an instruction received from a remote source in an onboard processor of the vehicle. If communication between the vehicle and the remote source is lost, the vehicle may still execute the instruction stored in the onboard processor. Kim discloses a rail-guided vehicle, i.e., a train. If communication between a vehicle system and remote-control system is lost, an onboard vehicle control system is activated. When the onboard vehicle control system is activated, an onboard vehicle operator and an offboard vehicle operator and may both be notified of the transfer of control via a manipulation of a display or other output device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vehicle system of Nagasawa to provide a prompt to an operator, as taught by Kim, to notify the operator of transfer of control of the vehicle (Kim at ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the preserved enforcement activities associated with the preserved targets (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 10, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the preserved targets are stored on a memory responsive to the transition from the active state to the degraded state (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; i.e. when the count threshold is 3, the instruction is still preserved in the vehicle controller even after communication with controller 4 has failed 2 times).
Regarding claim 11, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the off-board source of the vehicle includes an off-board memory, the off-board memory configured to store historical information related to portions of the route associated with the degraded state (controller 4 includes status data storage unit 16 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; status data storage unit 16 stores vehicle status of each vehicle 2, including velocity control points through which the vehicle passes and velocity control points through which the vehicle has already passed and the times when the vehicle has passed – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the off-board source of the vehicle is configured to communicate to the one or more processors the portions of the route associated with the degraded state (instruction preparation unit 14 prepares an instruction, including velocity control points, to be performed by the vehicle 2 in the next cycle and communication interface 12 sends the instructions – see at least ¶ [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Nagasawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to store at least some of the received enforcement targets onboard the vehicle as preserved targets having corresponding preserved enforcement activities responsive to receiving the portions of the route associated with the degraded state from the off-board source of the vehicle (if reception has failed at S3, the vehicle may still travel in accordance with the instruction at S5 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029]; i.e. when the count threshold is 3, the instruction is still preserved in the vehicle controller even after communication with controller 4 has failed 2 times).
Regarding claim 14, Kim further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide a prompt to an operator of the vehicle responsive to the transition from the active state to the degraded state (if control of the vehicle needs to transfer from the remote-control system 112 to OVCS 114 at 406 based on a condition, such as a communication loss with the remote-control system, one or more of the onboard operator or remote-control operator are notified of the transfer of control – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0046], [0047] and [0054]; notification may be via display 304 or output device 308 changing to a different color, changing to a different display format, sounding a bell, communicating a vocal command, communicating a sound, or the like – see at least ¶ [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vehicle system of Nagasawa to provide a prompt to an operator, as further taught by Kim, to notify the operator of transfer of control of the vehicle (Kim at ¶ [0054]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666