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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responded to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025.
According to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025:
Claims 1,11, 20 are amended.
Claims 3, 13, 19 have been canceled.
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding 101 rejections for amended claims:
Applicant argues “claim 1 requires "controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected." Controlling movement of a vehicle is not a mental process and not a concept that can be performed in the human mind. For example, controlling a vehicle can include communicating "with a propulsion system 206 ("Prop. System" in FIG. 2, such as one or more engines, motors, or the like) to control propulsion of the vehicle and vehicle system, and/or braking system 208 (e.g., one or more friction brakes, air brakes, or the like) to slow or stop movement of the vehicle and vehicle system." Paragraph [0023]”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully traversed. Although applicant asserts that “controlling movement of vehicle…” cannot be performed in the human mind, this argument if not persuasive. The fact that controlling propulsion, braking, and vehicle systems is not a mental process does not render the recited elements inventive, as such system are well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. Modern vehicle inherently include propulsion systems (e.g., engines, motors) braking systems (e.g., friction brakes air brakes), and electronic control unit that receive signals to regulate acceleration, deceleration, and vehicle movement. These system are standard components present in virtually all commercially available vehicles, and the specification itself acknowledges that these components perform their conventional functions. Therefore, while the act of controlling a vehicle is not a mental process, the claim merely recites using known subsystems in their ordinary, expected manner to execute routine control function.
Additionally, the applicant argues, For example, claim 1 includes "calculating a calculated location of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle moving into a blocking structure... using one or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors." Additionally, claim 1 includes "selecting a route" and "communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system." From the Specification of the Subject Application, calculating a calculated location of the vehicle can include "dead-reckoning calculations to approximate the location of the vehicle within the blocking structure." Paragraph [0033]. This is more than mere data collection and analysis being done by a processor. From dependent claim 8, "the route that is selected is selected by identifying the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location." Again, this is a practical application of the selecting a route for a vehicle in a blocking structure that rises to more than collecting and analyzing data and applying that mental process. As stated in the Background section of the Specification of the Subject Application,
"some rail vehicles may use vehicle control systems to control were, when, and/or how the rail vehicles may move to avoid collisions between the vehicles, to avoid moving in unsafe manners..., and the like." Paragraph [0004]. "Currently, the control systems may require that a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal be received to determine the possible starting location of the vehicle." Paragraph [0005]. An issue with relying on the GNSS signals to determine the starting location of a vehicle is that "there may be locations where GNSS signals are not available." Paragraph [0006]. Applicant’s argument is respectfully traversed. While applicant assert that the disclosed invention provided improvement such as avoiding collisions or preventing unsafe vehicle movements, these purported improvements are not recited in the claims. Rather, claim 1 generally recites calculating a location, selecting a route based on that location, and controlling movement using control signal, operation that correspond to generic processing and well-understood control action performed by conventional vehicle system.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained as indicated below.
Regarding 103 rejection applicant argues:
Neither Staats nor Oswald discloses or teach “calculating a calculated location of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle moving into a blocking structure where the vehicle does not determine the sensed location of the vehicle based off the one or more location signals, the calculated location of the vehicle calculated using one or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors. one or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors” Applicant argument is respectfully traversed.
Staats discloses calculating a calculated location of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle moving into a blocking structure where the vehicle does not determine the sensed location of the vehicle based off the one or more location signals, the calculated location of the vehicle calculated using one or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors. One or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors (calculating the location of the vehicle as it moving a tunnel that would block or interfere with GPS signal. calculated location of the location of the vehicle using one or more radio transmitter which may be located on the train – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0012 -0013, 0015, 0017, 0047-0050, 0059); (Onboard sensors – see include but are not limited to Oswald paragraph 0031);
Additionally, the applicant argues nowhere in the references teach or suggest the recitations of claim 4 “where in the calculated location is calculated using one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, or vehicle heading as one or more sensor output” applicant’s argument is respectfully traversed. Staats discloses where in the calculated location is calculated using one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, or vehicle heading as one or more sensor output (the transmitter using speed to obtain location information of the train see include but are not limited to paragraphs 0007-0008); (determined location of locomotive using the vehicle direction of travel – see include but are not limited to paragraphs 0021, 0031, 0039).
Furthermore, Applicant argues nowhere in the references discloses “the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location.” Applicant argument is respectfully traversed. Fries in view of Staats and Oswald discloses the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location (route within the error range of the calculated/determined location – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0004, 0056-0057).
For the reason giving above, rejections of claims 1-2, 4-12, 13-23 are as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10, 11-19, and 11-19 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a manufacture), claims 1-10 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1: A method comprising: determining a sensed location of a vehicle based off one or more location signals received from an off-board source; calculating a calculated location of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle moving into a blocking structure where the vehicle does not determine the sensed location of the vehicle based off the one or more location signals, the calculated location of the vehicle calculated using one or more sensor outputs; selecting a route from among several routes within the blocking structure based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system; and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected.
(Examiner notes: The above claim terms underlined fall under Step 2A - Prong Two analysis section detailed below)
The independent claimed invention recites an abstract idea where in collecting data from a plurality of sensors, analyzing the data and selecting a route covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (i.e., recite a process, that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is “Mental Process” and is an abstract idea.
And the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are recites an abstract idea receives data, identifying several routes, presenting several routes, i.e. collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea.
Independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 - recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using, control module, a processor, etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of control module, a processor, etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., evaluate, obtain, etc. steps performed by control module, a microprocessor, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of identified above (Claims 1, 11 and 20), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The recited additional element(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because calculating calculated location, communicating the route that is selected, controlling the movement of the vehicle would be required in any implementation of the abstract idea. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fails to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, 20 and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) identified above in independent claim(s) 1, 11, 20 and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e., implementing a command looping saturation control strategy within the software module including further activation of the actuators to generate a steady water engagement device delta position when one of the water engagement devices reaches a pre-determined level of bias which relate to data gathering conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea which similar to “Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price”, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staats et al. (U.S 20200158815) in view of Oswald et al. (U.S 20190383625).
Regarding claim 1, Staats discloses a method comprising: determining a sensed location of a vehicle based off one or more location signals received from an off-board source (determining allocation based off one or more location signal received from stationary radio transmitters– see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0006, 0020, 0046); calculating a calculated location of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle moving into a blocking structure where the vehicle does not determine the sensed location of the vehicle based off the one or more location signals (calculating the location of the vehicle as it moving a tunnel that would block or interfere with GPS signal– see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0012 -0013, 0017, 0049-0050, 0059), the calculated location of the vehicle calculated using one or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors(calculated location of the location of the vehicle using one or more radio transmitter – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0047-0048);
However, Staats does not explicitly discloses selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected.
Oswald discloses selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system (determine a route or lane from a plurality of routes or lanes and communicate it to the back-office system – see include but are not limited to Fig. 2B, paragraph 0004, 0018) and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected (controlling the movement of the vehicle using signal received from back-office system based that based on the determined route or lane – see include but are not limited to Fig. 2B, paragraphs 0022, 0046, 0066).
Staats and Oswald are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and are pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention-namely, vehicle navigation and control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats with the teaching of selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected as taught by Oswald in order to yield predicable result of identifying the location of the vehicle [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches, wherein the one or more location signals are Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals received from one or more GNSS satellites as the off-board source (One or more signal is received from GPS – see Staats paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 4, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches wherein the calculated location is calculated using one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, or vehicle headings as the one or more sensor outputs – (calculate location using sensors – see includes but are not limited to Staats paragraph 0037; Oswald paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 6, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches, wherein the vehicle is unable to receive the one or more location signals while the vehicle is in the blocking structure (vehicle is unable to receive signal while in blocking area – see includes but are not limited to Staats paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0017).
Regarding claim 7, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches, wherein the calculated location is calculated as a stopping location of the vehicle from a first trip and as a starting location for a subsequent second trip (the first and second geographical location of the train can be the same – see includes but are not limited to Staats paragraph 0015, 0052).
Regarding claim 9, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, with respect to the same.
Oswald teaches, wherein the route that is selected is automatically selected based on the calculated location ( the system can be used in both manned or unmanned vehicle – see includes but are not limited to Oswald paragraphs 0020).
Regarding claim 10, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, with respect to the same.
Oswald teaches, further comprising presenting the several routes to an operator of the vehicle and receiving a selection of the route that is selected based on the several routes being presented (onboard control unit receive selection of the route that selected based on the multiple route present (since the vehicle can be both manned and unmanned it is obvious that the navigation system which includes an operator interface that provide information to or from the operator) – see includes but are not limited to Oswald Fig. 2B, paragraphs 0021, 0024).
Regarding claim 11, Staats disclose a system comprising: one or more processors ( one or more processors – paragraphs 0008) configured to determining a sensed location of a vehicle based off one or more location signals received from an off-board source (determining allocation based off one or more location signal received from stationary radio transmitters– see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0006, 0020, 0046); calculating a calculated location of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle moving into a blocking structure where the vehicle does not determine the sensed location of the vehicle based off the one or more location signals (calculating the location of the vehicle as it moving a tunnel that would block or interfere with GPS signal– see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0012 -0013, 0017, 0049-0050, 0059), the calculated location of the vehicle calculated using one or more sensor outputs from one or more onboard sensors(calculated location of the location of the vehicle using one or more radio transmitter – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0047-0048);
However, Staats does not explicitly discloses selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected.
Oswald discloses selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system (determine a route or lane from a plurality of routes or lanes and communicate it to the back-office system – see include but are not limited to Fig. 2B, paragraph 0004, 0018) and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected (controlling the movement of the vehicle using signal received from back-office system based that based on the determined route or lane – see include but are not limited to Fig. 2B, paragraphs 0022, 0046, 0066).
Staats and Oswald are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and are pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention-namely, vehicle navigation and control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats with the teaching of selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected as taught by Oswald in order to yield predicable result of identifying the location of the vehicle [0004].
Regarding claim 12, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 11, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches, wherein the one or more location signals are Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals received from one or more GNSS satellites as the off-board source (One or more signal is received from GPS – see Staats paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 14, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 11, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches wherein the calculated location is calculated using one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, or vehicle headings as the one or more sensor outputs – (calculate location using sensors – see includes but are not limited to Staats paragraph 0037; Oswald paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 16, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 11, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches, wherein the vehicle is unable to receive the one or more location signals while the vehicle is in the blocking structure (vehicle is unable to receive signal while in blocking area – see includes but are not limited to Staats paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0017).
Regarding claim 17, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 11, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Staats teaches, wherein the calculated location is calculated as a stopping location of the vehicle from a first trip and as a starting location for a subsequent second trip (the first and second geographical location of the train can be the same – see includes but are not limited to Staats paragraph 0015, 0052).
Claims 8, 18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staats et al (U.S 20200158815) in view of in view of Oswald et al. (U.S 20190383625) and in further view of Fries et al. (US 20140350767).
Regarding claim 8, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the route that is selected is selected by identifying the several routes that are around the calculated location (Oswald 0018)
However, Staats in view of Oswald does not explicitly disclose the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location.
Fries discloses the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location (route within the error range of the calculated location – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location taught by Fries in order to yield predicable result of validating the accuracy of calculated location.
Regarding claim 18, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the route that is selected is selected by identifying the several routes that are around the calculated location (Oswald 0018)
However, Staats does not explicitly disclose the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location.
Fries discloses the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location (route within the error range of the calculated location – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0056-0057)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location taught by Fries in order to yield predicable result of validating the accuracy of calculated location.
Regarding claim 21, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the route that is selected is selected by identifying the several routes that are around the calculated location (Oswald 0018)
However, Staats does not explicitly disclose the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location.
Fries discloses the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location (route within the error range of the calculated location – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0056-0057)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location taught by Fries in order to yield predicable result of validating the accuracy of calculated location.
Regarding claim 22, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 21 comprising: identifying the several routes that are around the calculated location, automatically select a route (Oswald 0018-0020)
However, Staats in view of Oswald does not explicitly disclose the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location.
Fries discloses the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location (route within the error range of the calculated location – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location taught by Fries in order to yield predicable result of validating the accuracy of calculated location.
Regarding claim 23, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 21 comprising: identifying the several routes that are around the calculated location, presenting a reduced set of routes to an operator, where the reduced of route is based on calculated location, and the several routes, and receiving a selection of the route from the operator based on the present routes and the calculated location (Oswald – abs., 0018-0021).
However, Staats in view of Oswald does not explicitly disclose the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location.
Fries discloses the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location (route within the error range of the calculated location – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0056-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching the several routes that are within an error range around the calculated location taught by Fries in order to yield predicable result of validating the accuracy of calculated location.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staats et al (U.S 20200158815) in view of in view of Oswald et al. (U.S 20190383625) and Mian et al. (US 20130325334).
Regarding claim 20, Staats discloses A method comprising: determining sensed locations of a vehicle while the vehicle receives Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals ((One or more signal is received from GPS – see Staats paragraph 0062); responsive to no longer receiving the GNSS signals, calculating one or more calculated locations of the vehicle based on at least one of the sensed locations and the movement of the vehicle (calculating the location of the vehicle as it moving a tunnel that would block or interfere with GPS signal– see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0012 -0013, 0017, 0049-0050, 0059);
However, Staats does not explicitly discloses selecting a route from several different routes as a beginning route for a trip of the vehicle, the beginning route selected based on the one or more calculated locations; initializing the vehicle for the trip by communicating the beginning route of the vehicle to an off-board system of a positive control system; and controlling movement of the vehicle based at least in part on one or more control signals received from the off-board system responsive to initializing the vehicle for the trip
Oswald disclose selecting a route from several different routes as a beginning route for a trip of the vehicle, the beginning route selected based on the one or more calculated locations (determine a route or lane from a plurality of routes or lanes and communicate it to the back-office system – see include but are not limited to Fig. 2B, paragraph 0004, 0018); initializing the vehicle for the trip by communicating the beginning route of the vehicle to an off-board system of a positive control system (back-office positive train control system – see include but are not limited to paragraph 0022, 0030-0031) and controlling movement of the vehicle based at least in part on one or more control signals received from the off-board system responsive to initializing the vehicle for the trip (controlling the movement of the vehicle using signal received from back-office system based that based on the determined route or lane – see include but are not limited to Fig. 2B, paragraphs 0022, 0046, 0066).
Staats and Oswald are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and are pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention-namely, vehicle navigation and control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats with the teaching of selecting a route from among several routes based on the calculated location; communicating the route that is selected to a back-office system; initializing the vehicle for the trip by communicating the beginning route of the vehicle to an off-board system of a positive control system, and controlling movement of the vehicle using one or more control signals received from the back-office system that are based at least in part on the route that is selected as taught by Oswald in order to yield predicable result of identifying the location of the vehicle [0004].
However, Staats and Oswald does not explicitly disclose sensing movement of the vehicle using one or more inertial measurement sensors to capture sensor data indicative of movement of the vehicle, the sensor data comprising vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations and vehicle heading; the movement of the vehicle that is sensed using the one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, and vehicle headings.
Mian disclose sensing movement of the vehicle using one or more on board inertial measurement sensors to capture sensor data indicative of movement of the vehicle, the sensor data comprising vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations and vehicle heading; the movement of the vehicle that is sensed using the one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, and vehicle headings(Using the inertial measurement unit to acquires vibration, speed and direction of travel – see includes but are not limited to paragraph 0036).
Staats, Oswald and Mian are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and are pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention-namely, vehicle navigation and control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats and Oswald with the teaching of sensing movement of the vehicle using one or more inertial measurement sensors to capture sensor data indicative of movement of the vehicle, the sensor data comprising vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations and vehicle heading; the movement of the vehicle that is sensed using the one or more of vehicle speeds, vehicle vibrations, and vehicle headings as taught by Mian in order to yield predicable result of better identify the location of the vehicle[0004].
Regarding claim 5, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard tachometer to obtain the one or more sensor outputs (Oswald 0021).
However, Staats in view of Oswald does not explicitly disclose sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard inertial measurement unit.
Mian discloses sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard inertial measurement unit (the navigation system using gyroscopes or accelerometer to identify the location of the vehicle – see includes but are not limited to 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching of sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard inertial measurement unit as taught by Mian in order to yield predicable result of better identify the location of the vehicle[0004].
Regarding claim 15, Staats in view of Oswald discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard tachometer to obtain the one or more sensor outputs (Oswald 0021).
However, Staats in view of Oswald does not explicitly disclose sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard inertial measurement unit.
Mian discloses sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard inertial measurement unit (the navigation system using gyroscopes or accelerometer to identify the location of the vehicle – see includes but are not limited to 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Staats in view of Oswald with the teaching of sensing movement of the vehicle using an onboard inertial measurement unit as taught by Mian in order to yield predicable result of better identify the location of the vehicle[0004].
Conclusion
The Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Tan et al. (US 20140244157) discloses navigation system capable of calculating routes when global positioning systems is not available.
Tzamaloukas at al (US 20040230374) discloses method to enhance dead reckoning method to determine the position of a vehicle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 10. Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AI KIM TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571)-272-4190. 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.
/AI K TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665