DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
11/13/2025. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 were amended. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 13 that Yamada does not disclose “determining whether the one of the one or more traffic gaps has a duration sufficient to allow performance of the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations” because Yamada merely describes a field that indicates a time required to perform each maintenance operation read by the maintenance target device and that this is not the same as actually determining whether a traffic gap has a duration sufficient to allow performance of a maintenance operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited paragraph [0076] is a part of a sequence of maintenance operation steps Yamada describes from [0068]-[0092] with respect to fig. 3. Yamada applies the required time to perform a maintenance operation to determine sufficiency for performing a maintenance operation. See [0092] “It is possible to select the maintenance operation performed in actuality from the listed maintenance operation items in terms of … “maintenance operation can be completed in time when vehicle is operated in operation mode”.”
Applicant argues on p. 15-16 that there is no motivation to combine Yamada, Shubs, and Matheson and even if there were, there is no analysis as to how each of the references would be combined with each other to achieve the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Yamada provides maintenance planning for track maintenance. Shubs provides rail network visualizations. Matheson provides a railroad and dispatch system. These references are in the analogous art of rail operations and maintenance planning. Since the functionalities of the elements in Yamada, Shubs, and Matheson do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Applicant argues on p. 16 that the rationale for combining the three references is based on impermissible hindsight rather than a teaching, suggestion or motivation found within the cited references themselves. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant’s view of what each reference discloses is much narrower than what each reference actually discloses. As explained above, Yamada provides maintenance planning for track maintenance, Shubs provides rail network visualizations, and Matheson provides a railroad and dispatch system. These references are in the analogous art of rail operations and maintenance planning. The disclosures of each of these references are complementary to each other and do not interfere with each other when combined, nor are they conceptually unrelated to each other.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Yamada, US Publication No. 20160292627, hereinafter Yamada, in view of
Shubs et al., US Publication No. 2017/0043799 A1, hereinafter Shubs, in view of
Matheson et al., US 7222083 B2, hereinafter Matheson. As per,
Claims 1, 8, 15
Yamada teaches
A method, comprising: /
A system comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: /
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: (Yamada fig. 1; [0020])
receiving a request to schedule maintenance for one or more railroad stations; (Yamada [0009] “a maintenance management device includes a maintenance target device candidate determination unit that determines maintenance target device candidates in a maintenance segment based on an operation mode determined for the track running vehicle system” noting the system’s ability to identify and schedule maintenance tasks based on operational needs)
displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI), a first visual representation of locations for a plurality of railroad stations in relation to a plurality of railroad tracks, the plurality of railroad stations including the one or more railroad stations, wherein the first visual representation is associated with a first time period; (Yamada [0053] “ FIG. 2 shows an operation mode candidate display screen 201. For example, the operation mode candidate display screen 201 is a screen displayed on the display if the user designates a condition such as an operation segment of a vehicle, an operation date, an operation time zone;” [0056]-[0059] “FIG. 2 shows a route 203 on which the vehicle is operated. FIG. 2 shows stations 204 and 205 at which the vehicle stops. FIG. 2 shows a “M1” station 204 and a “M2” station 205. A double-lined arrow indicates a route 206 on which the vehicle is operated in each operation mode. FIG. 2 shows a construction segment 207. In the case of FIG. 2, the vehicle is not operated in a route 203-1” noting the screen described to show station locations and tracks and an operation date and time zone)
displaying, in the first visual representation, a visual indication indicating that the one or more railroad stations are associated with the request to schedule maintenance; (Yamada [0071] “ FIG. 3 shows a segment (maintenance segment) 210 in which the maintenance can be executed. The output unit 80 displays a maintenance segment in a state different from the state of the operation route (reference numeral 206) of the vehicle or other segments (segments 203 and 211). For example, the output unit 80 may display the maintenance segment 210 in a different color, or may display the maintenance segment by using a broken line shown in FIG. 3. The user can ascertain the maintenance segment at first glance” noting the visual indication of maintenance)
receiving, via the first visual representation displayed on the GUI, a selection of the one or more railroad stations; (Yamada [0070] “the user presses a portion of “Operation Mode C” 202-1 on the screen of FIG. 2, and thus, the maintenance target candidate display screen 301 may be displayed”)
[…];
determining whether the one of the one or more traffic gaps has a duration sufficient to allow performance of the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations; and (Yamada [0076] “The list 310 includes a “required time” row 313. The output unit 80 outputs time required for each maintenance operation read by the maintenance target device candidate determination unit 20 from the required maintenance time DB 106 to the row 313” noting the determination of the time required to perform the maintenance)
providing a control element on the single visual representation to enable scheduling the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations during a maintenance window within one of the one or more traffic gaps. (Yamada [0079] “The user may determine whether or not to execute the maintenance operation;” [0080] “The list 310 includes a “selection” row 317. For example, the output unit 80 displays a check box in the row 317. The user determines an item on which maintenance is executed by checking another field of the list 310, and gives a check mark in the “selection” field of the item (column) on which the operation is executed” noting the user controlling the execution of scheduling maintenance)
Yamada does not explicitly teach, Shubs however in the analogous art of scheduling teaches
displaying, on the GUI, in response to the selection of the one or more railroad stations on the first visual representation, a second visual representation of information associated with the one or more railroad stations covering the first time period, wherein the first visual representation and the second visual representation are displayed as a single visual representation indicating both the one or more railroad stations associated with the request to schedule maintenance and […]; and (Shubs [0036] “GUI 60 may include a display area 62 showing data and/or representations of railroad network 100. For example, display area 62 may show data and/or representations of one or more selected trains 104 and/or assets 10 associated with each train 104. Display area 62 may further show diagnostic information relating to the selected trains 104 and/or assets 10” noting the concurrent visual representations displayed)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s maintenance scheduling interfaces to include a concurrent display of different visual representations in view of Shubs in an effort to efficiently receive and analyze train network information visually (see Shubs ¶ [0050] & MPEP 2143G).
Yamada / Shubs do not explicitly teach, Matheson however in the analogous art of scheduling teaches
[…] one or more traffic gaps associated with the one or more railroad stations within the first time period, the one or more traffic gaps representing durations of time uninterrupted by a train scheduled to cross the one or more railroad stations or another maintenance window, the one or more gaps displayed on the single visual representation covering the first time period; (Matheson 12:14-21 “The planner/dispatcher 204 receives the coarse schedule from the system wide planner 200 and, as explained further below, determines a detailed schedule of the resources termed a movement plan. The movement plan may then be used by the dispatching portion of the planner/dispatcher 204 to be transmitted ultimately to the train controller 308 on board the locomotive in the trains being controlled” noting the movement plan; 15:30-36 “The extent of planning determiner 304 also receive on an input terminal 306 the data as to the available resources. A resource may be any entity which may be scheduled and for example, may be a locomotive, a freight car, an entire train, terminal equipment such as a loader or unloader, track segments and any fixed or moving block associated therewith, or track or train maintenance equipment” noting the track maintenance as an available resource to be scheduled)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s maintenance scheduling interfaces and Shubs’s concurrent display of visual indicators to include available times to schedule maintenance in view of Matheson in an effort to plan more efficient train schedules (see Matheson 40:22-25 & MPEP 2143G).
Additionally, the combination of Yamada’s maintenance scheduling interface with visual representation covering a time period and Shubs’s multiple layers of train/railroad information displayed on a single visual representation with Matheson’s identification of traffic gaps available for scheduling maintenance yields the predictable result of an interface displaying a single visual representation with the one or more railroad stations associated with the request to schedule maintenance and the one or more traffic gaps associated with the one or more railroad stations within the first time period.
Claims 2, 9, 16
Yamada / Shubs do not explicitly teach, Matheson however in the analogous art of scheduling teaches
wherein the information associated with the one or more railroad stations covering the first time period comprises one or more of: an indication of a time that a respective train is scheduled to cross one or more of the one or more railroad stations associated with the request to schedule maintenance during the first time period; and (Matheson 12:14-21 “The planner/dispatcher 204 receives the coarse schedule from the system wide planner 200 and, as explained further below, determines a detailed schedule of the resources termed a movement plan. The movement plan may then be used by the dispatching portion of the planner/dispatcher 204 to be transmitted ultimately to the train controller 308 on board the locomotive in the trains being controlled.”)
an indication of a time duration during which another maintenance for a respective railroad station of the one or more railroad stations has been scheduled to occur during the first time period, wherein the indication of the time that the respective train is scheduled to cross the one or more of the one or more of the plurality of railroad stations and the indication of the time duration during which another maintenance has been scheduled to occur are presented in the second visual representation concurrently. (Matheson 30:20-26 “A second category is rules which receive availability information from the user interface 500 and process these rules into a form which is suitable for application to the constraint based process. Availability is modified to account for extrinsic traffic, locomotives out of service for repair or maintenance, track out of service, or other factors which affect the availability profiles” noting availability modified to account for maintenance)
The rationales to modify/combine Yamada / Shubs with Matheson persists.
Claims 4, 11, 18
Yamada / Shubs do not explicitly teach, Matheson however in the analogous art of scheduling teaches
wherein enabling scheduling the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations within one of the one or more traffic gaps includes: enabling scheduling the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations during the maintenance window within one of the one or more traffic gaps based on a determination that the one of the one or more traffic gaps has a duration sufficient to allow performance of the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations. (Matheson 28:39-63 “The interaction of rule based and constraint based systems in the order scheduler of FIG. 4 and the movement planner of FIG. 6 may be more readily understood by reference to the system as illustrated in FIG. 8 … Constraints considered in this description generally fall into three categories, those time constraints which are inherent in the task of filling an order, those constraints which are inherent in the structure of the railroad, and those constraints which are explicitly specified by the user … Constraints are also inherent in the structure of the railroad. Such constraints include gap-able elements (sidings located between segments) and single/multiple track configurations. A wide variety of user defined constraints may be included. These constraints are generally time constraints which seek to restrict the resource scheduler 330 from scheduling certain resources over certain time periods” noting the constraints for scheduling certain resources over certain time periods)
The rationales to modify/combine Yamada / Shubs with Matheson persists.
Claims 5, 12, 19
Yamada teaches
determining, based on a visual representation displayed prior to the displaying of the single visual representation and covering a second time period occurring prior to the first time period, that no traffic gaps are present within the visual representation having a duration sufficient to allow performance of the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations; and (Yamada fig. 2; [0056]-[0060] noting the selection of the operation modes and the associated time intervals)
selecting the first time period to display the first visual representation on the GUI. (Yamada fig. 2; [0056]-[0060] noting the selection of the operation modes and the associated time intervals)
Claims 6, 13, 20
Yamada teaches
generating a maintenance reply including an indication of a time period of the maintenance window during which the maintenance for the one or more railroad stations is scheduled within one of the one or more traffic gaps. (Yamada [0036] “The maintenance plan list creation unit 70 reads the information recorded in the maintenance plan record DB 112, generates a list of maintenance operations in a predetermined period, and outputs the generated list to the output unit 80;” [0104]; fig. 5 noting the generation and display of the maintenance plan that includes the schedule information including timing)
Claims 7, 14
Yamada teaches
generating a map view that displays the maintenance window; and (Yamada fig. 3)
generating a calendar that displays a date and a time duration for the maintenance window. (Yamada fig. 3, noting the time required; fig. 5 noting the date and calendar view)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11214288 B2; EP4030365A1; Tam et al., Intelligent Optical Fibre Sensing Networks Facilitate Shift to Predictive Maintenance in Railway Systems, 2018.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights