DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A track condition monitoring device monitoring a state of a track, the track condition monitoring device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to
acquire a plurality of pieces of track displacement data each detected at a different time, each piece of track displacement data including first data associated with second data, the first data indicating a position of the track displaced by a track displacement, and the second data indicating a longitudinal level of the track displacement at the position;
calculate a plurality of index values, each indicating the state of the track in an evaluation target section of the track, based on the plurality of pieces of track displacement data by calculating, for each piece of track displacement data, a waveform length of the track displacement in the evaluation target section; and
predict an index value in a future period of time based on a change of the plurality of index values in a previous period of time, wherein the position is in the evaluation target section of the track.
Claim 17 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A track condition monitoring method of monitoring a state of a track, the track condition monitoring method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of pieces of track displacement data each detected at a different time, each piece of track displacement data including first data associated with second data, the first data indicating a position of the track displaced by a track displacement, and the second data indicating a longitudinal level of the track displacement at the position;
calculating a plurality of index value values, each indicating the state of the track in an evaluation target section of the track, based on the plurality of pieces of track displacement data by calculating, for each piece of track displacement data, a waveform length of the track displacement in the evaluation target section; and
predicting an index value in a future period of time based on a change of the plurality of index values in a previous period of time,
wherein the position is in the evaluation target section of the track.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the processing circuitry, i.e. a computer, does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of acquiring the track displacement data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 3-14 and 19-20 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, add insignificant computer limitations, i.e. a display and a storage, add insignificant extra solution data activity, i.e. displaying data, and/or generically recited sensors that do not equate to something significantly more that the abstract idea as they are recited at a high level of generality and conventional in the art. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Examiner Note:
Dependent claims 15 and 16 are patent eligible as the claim recite sensors for acquiring the track position data. As such the claims amount to something more than just a processor that receives data and utilizes the recited abstract idea to analyze the data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farritor (US 2009/0070064).
Regarding claim 1, Farritor discloses a track condition monitoring device monitoring a state of a track (see Abstract: system and method for determining vertical track modulus), the track condition monitoring device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to acquire a plurality of pieces of track displacement data each detected at a different time, each piece of track displacement data including first data associated with second data, the first data indicating a position of the track displaced by a track displacement, and the second data indicating a longitudinal level of the track displacement at the position (see Abstract, Fig. 16, and paragraphs 0029, 0062, 0065: rail vertical deflection sensor to obtain longitudinal level of the track displacement, i.e. the recited second data, and location identifier to obtain position data, i.e. the recited first data, associated with a section of track being analyzed; and see Fig. 10 and paragraphs 0052 and 0067: computing system/processor that receives and implements processing of the data; see paragraph 0055: acquiring track data at different times, i.e. a first time and a second time);
calculate a plurality of index values, each indicating the state of the track in an evaluation target section of the track, based on the plurality of pieces of track displacement data by calculating, for each piece of track displacement data, a waveform length of the track displacement in the evaluation target section (see Abstract, Fig. 19, and paragraph 0078: demines vertical track modulus based on displacement data, vertical track modulus is determined over a particular section of track, i.e. yielding a waveform length of the track displacement caused by the load of the vehicle); and
predict an index value in a future period of time based on a change of the plurality of index values in a previous period of time, wherein the position is in the evaluation target section of the track (see Figs. 17-18 and paragraphs 0071 and 0077: image represents a change in vertical track modulus with respect to time, shows when prediction will reach a threshold in the future, prediction based a particular location in the track section being evaluated).
Regarding claim 6, Farritor further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether consideration of maintenance of the track is necessary by comparing the index value in the future period of time with a preset reference value (see paragraphs 0064 and 0074: determination of when a vertical track modulus is expected to meet or exceed a predefined threshold allows for maintenance and repair to be scheduled and budgets to be established).
Regarding claim 13, Farritor further discloses a storage storing a plurality of pieces of track displacement data, each piece of track displacement data having been detected at a different time (see paragraph 0050-0052: vertical displacement data is stored in a storage device/memory, see Fig. 11, 16, and 18 and paragraph 0068: second set of data collected a time subsequent to the first set of measured data), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the plurality of index values based on the plurality of pieces of track displacement data (see Figs. 11, 16, and 18 and paragraph 0070 and 0072: trend in vertical track modulus is determined using the plural pieces of vertical deflection data/displacement data).
Regarding claim 15, Farritor discloses a track condition monitoring system (see Abstract: system and method for monitoring condition of railroad track), comprising:
the track condition monitoring device according to claim 1 (see Abstract, Fig. 10, and rejection of parent claim 1: track condition monitoring device previously addressed in rejection of parent claim 1);
a first sensor provided to a railroad car, the first sensor acquiring track position data that specifies a position of the track in a longitudinal direction (see Abstract, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 0029, 0062, 0065: location identifier to obtain position data, i.e. the recited first data, associated with a section of track being analyzed); and
a second sensor provided to the railroad car, the second sensor acquiring a longitudinal level of track displacement (see Abstract, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 0029, 0053, 0062, 0065: rail vertical deflection sensor to obtain longitudinal level of the track displacement).
Regarding claim 16, Farritor further discloses wherein the first sensor transmits the track position data to the track condition monitoring device, and the second sensor transmits the longitudinal level to the track condition monitoring device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0029, 0062, 0065: rail vertical deflection sensor to obtain longitudinal level of the track displacement, i.e. the recited second sensor, and location identifier to obtain position data, i.e. the recited first sensor, associated with a section of track being analyzed; and see Fig. 10 and paragraphs 0052 and 0067: computing system/processor that receives and implements processing of the data obtained by the sensors).
Regarding claim 17, Farritor discloses a track condition monitoring method of monitoring a state of a track (see Abstract: system and method for determining vertical track modulus), the track condition monitoring method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of pieces of track displacement data each detected at a different time, each piece of track displacement data including first data associated with second data, the first data indicating a position of the track displaced by a track displacement, and the second data indicating a longitudinal level of the track displacement at the position (see Abstract, Fig. 16, and paragraphs 0029, 0062, 0065: rail vertical deflection sensor to obtain longitudinal level of the track displacement, i.e. the recited second data, and location identifier to obtain position data, i.e. the recited first data, associated with a section of track being analyzed; and see Fig. 10 and paragraphs 0052 and 0067: computing system/processor that receives and implements processing of the data; see paragraph 0055: acquiring track data at different times, i.e. a first time and a second time);
calculating a plurality of index value values, each indicating the state of the track in an evaluation target section of the track, based on the plurality of pieces of track displacement data by calculating, for each piece of track displacement data, a waveform length of the track displacement in the evaluation target section (see Abstract, Fig. 19, and paragraph 0078: demines vertical track modulus based on displacement data, vertical track modulus is determined over a particular section of track, i.e. yielding a waveform length of the track displacement caused by the load of the vehicle); and
predicting an index value in a future period of time based on a change of the plurality of index values in a previous period of time, wherein the position is in the evaluation target section of the track (see Figs. 17-18 and paragraphs 0071 and 0077: image represents a change in vertical track modulus with respect to time, shows when prediction will reach a threshold in the future, prediction based a particular location in the track section being evaluated).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Federal Railroad Administration (Report to Congress: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives).
Regarding claim 3, Farritor does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry calculates each index value by subtracting a first length of the track from the waveform length, the first length being a length of the track having no track displacement.
Federal Railroad Administration wherein the processing circuitry calculates each index value by subtracting a first length of the track from the waveform length, the first length being a length of the track having no track displacement (see page 12 Section 2.4.1: discloses computing vertical deflection by subtracting an unloaded height value from a loaded height measurement; see also page 30 Section Track Vertical Stiffness: discusses subtracting two measured vertical profiles, i.e. waveform lengths of track, as the profile represents a waveform of a measured length to determine a stiffness indicator).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Federal Railroad Administration, i.e. taking a difference between the loaded and unloaded profiles generated in Farritor, for the advantageous benefit of using the disclosed subtraction process to obtain the tracks vertical deflection due to the load of the railcar. Once modified, it would have been obvious to have the processing circuitry of Farritor implement the claimed calculations as the processing circuity of Farritor implements processing of method calculations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Pedanekar (US 20050279240).
Regarding claim 4, Farritor does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain a total sum of an absolute value of a change amount of the track in the evaluation target section based on the track displacement data.
Pedanekar discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain a total sum of an absolute value of a change amount of the track in the evaluation target section based on the track displacement data (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0144 and 0159: software calculates sum of squares of deviations, i.e. an absolute value of a change between current shape and standard rail shape, software running on hardware/processor)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Pedanekar, i.e. using the sum of squares of deviation between a current profile and standard profile, for the advantageous benefit of represent a numerical value of change detected in the rail profile.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Prince (US 20170205379).
Regarding claim 5, Farritor does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry calculates a value corresponding to a length of the track caused by the longitudinal level displacement of the track in the evaluation target section.
Prince discloses wherein the processing circuitry calculates a value corresponding to a length of the track caused by the longitudinal level displacement of the track in the evaluation target section. (see paragraphs 0009, 0036, 0038, and 0043: identifying crushed head based on a waveform depression length in the track, i.e. accumulated distance of depth deviation, waveform length not defined by the claim language, processor implements processing loop for identifying such crushed head).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Prince, i.e. using a processor to determine the length of a waveform depression, for the advantageous benefit of identifying any crushed head defects in the rail.
Claim 7-9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Bryan (US 5867404).
Regarding claim 7, Farritor further discloses a display, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate, based on the plurality of index values, a track condition display image indicating a state of the track (see Figs. 16 and 18 and paragraphs 0071 and 0076: visual depiction of the vertical track modulus values over time, i.e. as previously discussed vertical track modulus represents a state of the track).
Farritor does not expressly disclose a display the display image and wherein the processing circuity is configured to control the display to display the track condition image.
Bryan discloses a display the display image and wherein the processing circuity is configured to control the display to display the track condition image (see Abstract, Fig. 9, column 2 line 32-line 42, and column 13 lines 27-37: discloses using a processor to generate and control a display to display a track condition image on a display monitor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Bryan, i.e. using a display to display the generated track condition image, for the advantageous benefit of allowing one to view the computed visual image.
Regarding claim 8, Farritor, previously modified, further discloses wherein the track condition display image includes an image indicating a change of the plurality of index values with respect to an elapsed time (see Figs. 16 and 18 and paragraph 0071 and 0076: image represents a change in vertical track modulus values with respect to time).
Regarding claim 9, Farritor does not expressly disclose wherein the track condition display image includes an image in which the state of the track is associated with a route diagram of the track.
Bryan discloses wherein a track condition display image includes an image in which the state of the track is associated with a route diagram of the track (see Abstract, Fig. 9 and column 13 lines 27-37: image shows a route diagram of the track with condition indicators).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Bryan, i.e. displaying the route with defect locations, for the advantageous benefit of allowing one to view the location of the identified issues on a map of the railway.
Regarding claim 11, Farritor, previously modified, further discloses wherein the track condition display image includes an image indicating prediction information of the index value in the future period of time (see Fig. 18 and paragraph 0071: image represents a change in vertical track modulus with respect to time, shows when prediction will reach a threshold in the future).
Regarding claim 20, Farritor discloses generating a graphical depiction comprising information based the index value in the future period of time (see Figs. 17 and 18).
Farritor does not expressly disclose displaying the information/graphical depiction.
Bryan discloses a display that is used for displaying determined track condition information (see Abstract, Fig. 9, column 2 line 32-line 42, and column 13 lines 27-37: discloses using a processor to generate and control a display to display a track condition image on a display monitor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Bryan, i.e. using a display to display the generated track condition information, for the advantageous benefit of allowing one to view the computed visual image. Once modified, using a display to display generated information as taught by Bryan, the modification would result in displaying the information/graphical depiction discussed of Farritor using a display.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Bryan (US 5867404) and Ganguli (US 20160180610).
Regarding claim 10, Farritor, discloses wherein the analysis of the plurality of index values and a preset reference value is related to maintenance and repair (see paragraphs 0071 and 0074).
Farritor and Bryan do not expressly disclose wherein the track condition display image includes an image indicating maintenance suggestion information prompting, the maintenance suggestion information indicating whether maintenance is needed, and the maintenance suggestion information being based on the plurality of index values and a preset reference value.
Ganguli discloses wherein the track condition display image includes an image indicating maintenance suggestion information prompting, the maintenance suggestion information indicating whether maintenance is needed, and the maintenance suggestion information being based on a plurality of index values and a preset reference value (see Fig. 16 and paragraphs 0065-0066: predicted trend/graph includes information of when maintenance should be schedule, prediction is based on threshold/present reference value and the trend of an index value, trend computed using a plurality of index values).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Ganguli, i.e. determining and showing a time when maintenance is required/suggested, for the advantageous benefit of allowing one to visually see when maintenance should occur on the trend diagram.
Regarding claim 12, Farritor and Bryan do not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to predict a maintenance consideration prediction time at which consideration of maintenance of the track in a future period of time is required, and the track condition display image includes an image indicating the maintenance consideration prediction time.
Ganguli discloses wherein processing circuitry is further configured to predict a maintenance consideration prediction time at which consideration of maintenance of the track in a future period of time is required, and the track condition display image includes an image indicating the maintenance consideration prediction time (see Fig. 16 and paragraphs 0065-0066: predicted trend/graph includes information of when maintenance should be schedule, prediction is based on threshold/present reference value and the trend of an index value; see paragraph 0007 method is computer implemented).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Ganguli, i.e. determining and showing a time when maintenance is required/suggested, for the advantageous benefit of allowing one to visually see when maintenance should occur on the trend diagram.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Anderson (US 20100004804).
Regarding claim 14, Farritor does not expressly disclose wherein the evaluation target section is a section of the track divided into a plurality of sections at regular intervals.
Anderson discloses wherein an evaluation target section is a section of the track divided into a plurality of sections at regular intervals (see Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraph 0028 and 0035: acquires data for a particular track block, track is divided into blocks/sections at regular intervals, when evaluating a target section of track).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Anderson, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the cost of inspecting the rails of a railway system.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farritor (US 2009/0070064) in view of Shubs (US 20170129514).
Regarding claim 19, Farritor discloses determining whether consideration of maintenance of the track is necessary based on the index value in the future period of time and a preset reference value (see Fig 18 and paragraphs 0064, 0071, and 0074: determination of when a vertical track modulus is expected to meet or exceed a predefined threshold allows for maintenance and repair to be scheduled and budgets to be established).
Farritor does not expressly disclose displaying, via a display when the determining indicates that consideration of maintenance is necessary, maintenance suggestion information suggesting the consideration of maintenance.
Shubs discloses displaying, via a display when the determining indicates that consideration of maintenance is necessary, maintenance suggestion information suggesting the consideration of maintenance (see paragraphs 0038 and 0052-0023: in response to the identification of a component needing maintenance, displaying a maintenance alert, i.e. a suggestion of maintenance, on a display).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Farritor with the teachings of Shubs, i.e. displaying a maintenance alert on a display, for the advantageous benefit of providing a visual alert to personal so that necessary maintenance can be completed.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berggren (US 20170029001) discloses subtracting unleaded and loaded vertical alignment waveforms with respect to a section of track.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible. Examiner would like to note that dependent claims 15 and 16 are patent eligible.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible as the claim reflect a technical improvement in the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field under Desjardins. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current set of claims are not directed to overcoming the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems; thus, improving a computers machine learning ability. In this instance, the computer/processing circuit is utilized as a tool to perform the recited calculations/predictions of the claimed abstract idea.
Applicant supports this augment that the specification identifies a technical problem, discloses a specific technical solution, demonstrates a technical improvement, and the claims reflect the technical improvement. Applicant notes that the prediction accuracy is improved.
The examiner disagrees with these arguments as the claims do not amount to same type of improvement discussed in the cited Enfish and Desjardins opinions, i.e. an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. As indicated by the applicant the argued improvement is an improvement to how an index value is calculated. An improved/novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Synopsys v Mentor Graphics held that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and that the search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty (SYNOPSYS, INC. v. 2 MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (CAFC Decided October 17, 2016). In this instance, the computer is used as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea, the functioning of the computer itself is not improved by the recited abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the Office Action characterization is an impermissible high level of generality under the Desjardins option. The applicant notes that panel criticized the reasoning that equated any machine learning with an unpatentable algorithm.
The examiner disagrees with this argument as the claim are not directed to a machine learning algorithm directed to solving a particular problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in computing technology. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose any problem in computer technology, but a problem with how particular data is analyzed. The two concepts are not the same.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite mathematical concepts or a mental process, arguing that a human cannot acquire track data, or mentally calculate waveform length for track displacement data containing thousands of coordinate points across multiple measurement secessions ore predict an index value in time.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The acquiring of the data listed as extrasolution data activity, not part of the recited abstract idea. However, a human probably could pull records of past recorded track data with ease if the documents were readily available. The claims do not expressly recite thousands of data points. A human can calculate a difference value; thus, a human would be able to calculate a plurality of index values as disclosed in Farritor. A human can predict an index value as disclosed in Farritor as it merely involved computing a slope between 2 values, linear regression analysis, or it could be done via simple drawing a straight line that passes through data points, a concept discussed in Farritor. As such, the claims are directed to abstract math concept, and not an improvement to a computer like the argued Enfish decision. Enfish improved the general functionality of a computer, here, the recited processing circuity is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims recite an improvement to a technology, i.e. railroad track monitoring technology, citing that the invention enables a more reliable and accurate assessment. As discussed above, a novel abstract idea/improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims is not a generic computer, and that the examiner conclusion is improper without adequate explanation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A process is a generic computer component. The applicant has not pointed out any limitations or elements that are not generic computer components. A generic computer can acquire data and perform calculations. Applicant argues that the processing circuity in necessary and that without it the technical improvement cannot be achieved. The examiner respectfully disagrees as claim 17 does not contain the necessary processing circuitry. As discussed above, a human presented with the data in Farritor, could perform the recited calculations/predictions without processing circuity.
Applicant argues that the claims are significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, indicating that the technical approach is not routine or conventional. As discussed above, a novel abstract idea/improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are patentable over the prior art of record. Applicant argues that Farritor provides no discussion or suggestion of calculating a waveform length of the track displacement. Applicant arguments also indicate that the prior art fails to disclose an arc length/calculation of a length of a curve.
The examiner would like to note that a quick search of waveform length online generated the following:
a waveform length is the spatial distance of one full cycle (wavelength) or the total duration/number of samples in a signal, depending on context.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant is not using the conventional definition of what a waveform length would typically represent in their arguments. Also, the term waveform length is not a conventional term in railroad geometric profile analysis. The examiner provided a broad, reasonable interpretation of the term waveform length using the concepts disclosed in the prior art of record. Farritor discloses taking measurements over a specified length of track. The measurement produces a waveform. Thus, the disclosed measurements make up a waveform length of measurement data. A waveform does not necessarily have to be a periodic signal.
Applicant argues that vertical deflection is not the same metric of concern of the applicant’s invention. While the applicant argues that the prior art references, i.e. Farritor and FRA, do not compute arc length and that the subtractions in the prior art of record are not the same as the subtractions of the applications invention, this concept is not clearly presented in the claimed invention. The examiner recommends for the application to further define the clamed invention to expressly reflect the argued differences, i.e. clearly define what the waveform length in the claimed is to distinguish it from the prior art of record.
Applicant argues that Farritor does not disclose or suggest predicting an index value in the future based on a change of the index values over time. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the trend line disclosed in Farritor, see Figs. 17 and 18, is a prediction of an index value representing a change in values over time based on a monitored change in values over time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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 MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857