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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on March 13, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/remarks filed March 13, 2025, with respect to claims 11-15 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said claims 11-15 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed March 13, 2025, with respect to claims 3-4, 13-14 and 17-18 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (COOPER – US 2013/0131909 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said claims 3-4, 13-14 and 17-18 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn.
Further on, claims 3-4, 13-14 and 17-18 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed March 13, 2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 5-12, 15-16 and 19-20 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (COOPER – US 2013/0131909 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained below.
Applicant respectfully asserts that COOPER do not discloses the limitation “…the pacing trip plan created or adjusted to direct the vehicle system to reach one waypoint location of the plurality of waypoint locations with a highest priority rank within a corresponding target arrival time window…” as required in at least independent claims 1, 11 and 16.
The Examiner respectfully submits that COOPER discloses that the scheduling system 110 may use designated priorities between the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction ([0189]).
Accordingly, it’s inherent that the routes (i.e., waypoint locations) will have priorities where at least one route will have the highest.
The term “within a corresponding target arrival time window” can be any time, in that if said “a corresponding target arrival time window” violate the allowed time or is within the allowed time, do not make a distinction.
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 17-18 make the distinction that “at a time that is {{outside of}}} the second target arrival time window”, but independent claims 1, 11 and 16 do not make such a distinction and that’s why the Examiner respectfully maintain that COOPER discloses the limitation “…the pacing trip plan created or adjusted to direct the vehicle system to reach one waypoint location of the plurality of waypoint locations with a highest priority rank within a corresponding target arrival time window…” as required in at least independent claims 1, 11 and 16.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 17-18 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (COOPER – US 2013/0131909 A1).
Regarding claim 1, COOPER (Figs. 1-11) discloses:
A vehicle control system, comprising:
one or more processors ([0070]: “One or both of the energy management system 210 and the control unit 212 may be embodied in hardware, such as a processor, controller, or other logic-based device, that performs functions or operations based on one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software). The instructions on which the hardware operates may be stored on a tangible and non-transitory (e.g., not a transient signal) computer readable storage medium, such as a memory 214. The memory 214 may include one or more computer hard drives, flash drives, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, and the like. Alternatively, one or more of the sets of instructions that direct operations of the hardware may be hard-wired into the logic of the hardware”) configured to receive a data set associated with plural waypoint locations along one or more routes, the data set indicating the plural waypoint locations (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]), target arrival time windows for a vehicle system to reach the plural waypoint locations, and priority ranks of the plural waypoint locations (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]: “As another example of modifying or creating the schedule of the vehicle system to avoid violating the time restriction includes changing which routes are taken by the vehicle system to travel to the vehicle yard. The vehicle system may have a variety of combinations of routes than can be used to travel to the vehicle yard. For example, some combinations of routes may be longer than others, some combinations of routes may travel over declined grades more often than others, and the like. A scheduling module (as described herein) may select the combination of routes that causes the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. In one embodiment, the scheduling system 110 may simulate travel of the vehicle system (e.g., a model of the vehicle system) over different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. Additionally, or alternatively, the scheduling system 110 may use previous travels of the vehicle system over the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. Additionally, or alternatively, the scheduling system 110 may use designated priorities between the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction”),
the one or more processors ([0070]) configured to create or adjust a pacing trip plan based on the data set, the pacing trip plan designating one or more operational settings of the vehicle system as a function of one or more of time, distance, or location, the pacing trip plan created or adjusted to direct the vehicle system to reach one or more of the plural waypoint locations within the corresponding target arrival time windows (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 11, COOPER (Figs. 1-11) discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving a data set associated with plural waypoint locations along one or more routes, the data set indicating the plural waypoint locations, target arrival time ranges for a vehicle system to reach the plural waypoint locations, and priority ranks of the plural waypoint location (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]: “As another example of modifying or creating the schedule of the vehicle system to avoid violating the time restriction includes changing which routes are taken by the vehicle system to travel to the vehicle yard. The vehicle system may have a variety of combinations of routes than can be used to travel to the vehicle yard. For example, some combinations of routes may be longer than others, some combinations of routes may travel over declined grades more often than others, and the like. A scheduling module (as described herein) may select the combination of routes that causes the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. In one embodiment, the scheduling system 110 may simulate travel of the vehicle system (e.g., a model of the vehicle system) over different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. Additionally, or alternatively, the scheduling system 110 may use previous travels of the vehicle system over the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. Additionally, or alternatively, the scheduling system 110 may use designated priorities between the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction”); and
creating or adjusting a pacing trip plan based on the data set, the pacing trip plan designating one or more operational settings of the vehicle system as a function of one or more of time, distance, or location, the pacing trip plan created or adjusted to direct the vehicle system to reach one or more of the plural waypoint locations within the corresponding target arrival time ranges (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 16, COOPER (Figs. 1-11) discloses:
A system, comprising:
an energy management system (energy management system 210: Fig. 2) comprising one or more processors configured to receive a data set associated with plural waypoint locations along a route, the data set indicating the plural waypoint locations, target arrival time windows for a vehicle system to reach the plural waypoint locations, and priority ranks between the plural waypoint locations (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]: “As another example of modifying or creating the schedule of the vehicle system to avoid violating the time restriction includes changing which routes are taken by the vehicle system to travel to the vehicle yard. The vehicle system may have a variety of combinations of routes than can be used to travel to the vehicle yard. For example, some combinations of routes may be longer than others, some combinations of routes may travel over declined grades more often than others, and the like. A scheduling module (as described herein) may select the combination of routes that causes the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. In one embodiment, the scheduling system 110 may simulate travel of the vehicle system (e.g., a model of the vehicle system) over different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. Additionally, or alternatively, the scheduling system 110 may use previous travels of the vehicle system over the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction. Additionally, or alternatively, the scheduling system 110 may use designated priorities between the different combinations of the routes in order to select a combination of the routes that will or is likely to cause the vehicle system to arrive at the vehicle yard without violating the time restriction”),
the energy management system (energy management system 210: Fig. 2) configured to create a pacing trip plan based on the data set and the priority ranks between the plural waypoint locations, the pacing trip plan designating one or more operational settings of the vehicle system as a function of one or more of time, distance, or location, the pacing trip plan created to direct the vehicle system to reach one or more of the plural waypoint locations within the corresponding target arrival time windows (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 2, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 1, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the data set includes a first waypoint location at a first distance along the route and a second waypoint location at a second distance along the route that is past the first waypoint location in a direction of travel of the vehicle system, the data set indicating that the vehicle system is to reach the first waypoint location within a first target arrival time window and the vehicle system is to reach the second waypoint location within a second target arrival time window (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 5, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 1, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are also configured to create or adjust the pacing trip plan based at least in part on one or more speed restrictions at one or more locations along the route, the one or more speed restrictions designating one or more of a minimum speed limit or a maximum speed limit, the one or more processors configured to create or adjust the pacing trip plan such that the vehicle system moves at speeds that are greater than the minimum speed limit or less than the maximum speed limit (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 6, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 1, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the priority ranks of the plural waypoint locations are designated by one or more of an owner of the vehicle system, an owner of cargo being carried by the vehicle system, an operator of the vehicle system, or a remote dispatcher (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 7, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 1, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the target arrival time windows for the vehicle system to reach the plural waypoint locations are designated by one or more of an owner of the vehicle system or an owner of cargo being carried by the vehicle system (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 8, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 1, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the vehicle system is a first vehicle system, the one or more processors configured to create or adjust the pacing trip plan also based on movement of a second vehicle system moving along the one or more routes, wherein the first vehicle system moving according to the pacing trip plan is configured to maintain a designated spacing from the second vehicle system along the one or more routes (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 9, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 8, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the second vehicle system is ahead of or behind the first vehicle system, and the first and second vehicle systems are configured to travel in a same direction of travel along the one or more routes (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 10, COOPER disclose the vehicle control system according to claim 1, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to create or adjust the pacing trip plan to control operation of the vehicle system to at least one of reduce fuel consumption, reduce wear on the vehicle system, increase throughput on a vehicle network, reduce emissions, or reduce noise relative to one or more of manual control of the vehicle system during the trip or controlling operation of the vehicle system according to a trip plan (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 12, COOPER disclose the method according to claim 11, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the data set includes a first waypoint location at a first distance along the route and a second waypoint location at a second distance along the route that is past the first waypoint location in a direction of travel of the vehicle system, the data set indicating that the vehicle system is to reach the first waypoint location within a first target arrival time range and the vehicle system is to reach the second waypoint location within a second target arrival time range (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 15, COOPER disclose the method according to claim 11, and further on COOPER also discloses:
creating or adjust the pacing trip plan also based at least in part on one or more speed restrictions at one or more locations along the one or more routes, the one or more speed restrictions designating one or more of a minimum speed limit or a maximum speed limit, the pacing trip plan designating the one or more operational settings such that vehicle system moves at speeds greater than the minimum speed limit or less than the maximum speed limit (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 19, COOPER disclose the system according to claim 16, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the energy management system is also configured to create or adjust the pacing trip plan based on one or more speed restrictions at one or more locations along the route, the one or more speed restrictions designating one or more of a minimum speed limit or a maximum speed limit, the one or more processors configured to create or adjust the pacing trip plan such that the vehicle system moves at speeds that are greater than the minimum speed limit or less than the maximum speed limit (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
Regarding claim 20, COOPER disclose the system according to claim 16, and further on COOPER also discloses:
wherein the priority ranks between the plural waypoint locations and the target arrival time windows for the vehicle system to reach the plural waypoint locations are designated by one or more of an owner of the vehicle system, an owner of cargo being carried by the vehicle system, an operator of the vehicle system, or a remote dispatcher (COOPER [Abstract, 0032-0034, 0070-0074, 0087, 0115, 0128, 0137, 0150, 0162-0165, 0176-0179, 0191, 0214]).
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 Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747