DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 03/05/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-12 as set forth below in this Office action.
Regarding the claim eligibility, Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.13)
PNG
media_image1.png
570
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in detail in sections 5-6 below, Examiner asserts that the invention recited in the pending claims is directed to an abstract idea of assessing risk of rail buckling in railroad infrastructure, but without “significantly more”. The limitation of “wherein the typed, numerically-represented data comprise data points having respective types that are determined by a combination of a data type and a corresponding condition” encompasses merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of monitoring and modeling railroad infrastructure. It thus represents only a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim to the relevant field, like Bilski’s identification of the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, which the Supreme Court indicated did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets. See also MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to the limitation of “more than one computer processes are configured to concurrently process different railroad data types”, under the BRI, it encompasses an intended use of the well-known multithreading paradigm technique with a general-purpose computer processor performing a generic computer function of processing data for implementing abstract idea (math + mental), but does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or reflect an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant further argues that (REMARKS, p.15):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The evaluation of subject matter eligibility under the Alice framework requires to analyze the claim limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines. In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the BRI to the claims, Examiner asserts that the core of pending claims 1-20 is directed to an abstract idea of calculating rail buckling risk factors in railroad infrastructure. The computer processor, configured to spawn more than one computer process concurrently to process different railroad data types, is used merely as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. The claimed combination of the recited computer processor and the judicial exception (math + mental) does not improve the functionality, e.g., speed and accessibility, of the computer or any computation device. The claims do not recite any limitation in relation to the advancement of a computer processor itself, only include data processing limitations/software limitations that could be run on any processor. As such, the claimed limitations of the processor do not amount to be “significantly more” than the judicial exception or a qualified improvement under 2019 PEG.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Ex Parte Desjardins are not persuasive. The decision in Ex Parte Desjardins is fact specific and is not analogous to the instant claims of the present application. Ex parte Desjardins relates to improvements in machine learning technology, however, no machine learning or AI related technology is recited in the instant claims.
Applicant argues improper interpretation under Loper. This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner is following the current guidelines of the Office.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analysis under the 2019 PEG as set forth in sections 5-6 below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant's arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 7-12 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims now recite “transforming the data into typed, numerically-represented data based on a condition of the data”. However there does not appear to be support for transforming the data into a [different] typed data (it is not entirely clear what that is intended to mean); instead, the disclosure seems to only support that the data is transformed into numerically-represented data that relates to a type, but not that data changes types in any way which now seems to be claimed. For example, Spec. [0039] discusses that different types of data are received and they are transformed into numerically-represented data based on the type of information, e.g. ballast fouling index can be represented by a particular integer. Transforming to a particular integer based on the type is different than “transforming the data into typed, numerically represented data” as now claimed which has a different scope and does not appear supported by the disclosure. Also noting that in the examples in Spec. [0039], all of the numerical representations appear to be “integers” and integers would be the same “type” of data whereas different integers would be a different value.
It is unclear how the data would be considered as transformed into different types of numerically representations based on the Spec. It is held that every feature recited in the claims must be supported by the drawings or the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 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.
Representative Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being highlighted.
A data foundation system configured to facilitate collection and transformation of data into a statistically-relevant foundation, comprising:
a memory having a first database with a plurality of weighting factors, thresholds, and specifications related to railroad tracks; and
a processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to execute machine-readable instructions, wherein the configuration of the processor to execute the machine-readable instructions includes configuration to spawn more than one computer process concurrently, wherein the more than one computer processes are configured to concurrently process different railroad data types to perform the program steps comprising:
(a) receiving data from a plurality of sources related to a railroad track or a railroad infrastructure;
(b) transforming the data into typed, numerically-represented data based on a condition of the data, wherein the typed, numerically-represented data comprise data points having respective types that are determined by a combination of a data type and a corresponding condition;
(c) determining what a given particular data point represents based on a type of the data;
(d) assigning, for each typed data point, a stored type identifier and condition identifier;
(e) receiving weighting factors associated with particular railroad constituents, and computing one or more scores for the typed, numerically-represented data using the weighting factors; and
(f) generating a concurrently computed, statistically weighted data foundation including the typed, numerically-represented data, the weighting factors, and the one or more scores.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), it is considered that the limitations recited in the highlighted portion of claim 1 encompass a combination of mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers or mental steps. That is, other than reciting “by each concurrent computer process”, nothing in the highlighted portion precludes these steps from practically being performed in mind with the aid of paper/pen or a general-purpose computer. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Specifically, under the BRI, each of the limitations (b), (c) and (d) reads on a mental process (i.e., data analysis, manipulation and evaluation; see Spec., US 20240075970 A1, para. 0039) that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.
The limitation of “typed, numerically-represented data …, wherein the typed, numerically-represented data comprise data points having respective types that are determined by a combination of a data type and a corresponding condition” encompasses merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of monitoring and modeling railroad infrastructure.
Under the BRI, each of the limitations (e) and (f) reads on mathematical concepts and/or calculations (see Spec., US 20240075970 A1, para. 0079-0081, 0086-0088, 0091-0093, 0109, 0129-0134) that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper or by a generic computer. 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.
Therefore, the limitations recited in the highlighted portion amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
Step 2A - Prong 2 of the 101 analysis asks: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
Under the BRI, the additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system, including the claimed memory, and processor do 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. Furthermore, the limitations relating to spawning concurrently also serve to tie the recited abstract idea to a generic computer as one with ordinary skill in the art understands that this is a fundamental basic concept of generic computers.
Under the BRI, the additional limitation (a) of receiving data equates to an extra-solution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not require any particular devices or sensors to receive the data from said plurality of sources related to a railroad track or a railroad infrastructure. It could just as easily relate to the acquisition of the data from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data in real-time. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
In general, 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 as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
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.
Specifically, 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. In particular, the technique of multithreading paradigm including spawning more than one computer process to concurrently perform a separate path of execution within a program, which allows a CPU to execute multiple threads concurrently thus improving the overall performance and efficiency of a system, is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reason as for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations and/or define the type of data being collected/analyzed by the abstract idea. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kainer (US 20130191070) in view of Ferrell (US 20100114982).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kainer discloses a data foundation system configured to facilitate collection and transformation of data into a statistically-relevant foundation and a method for practicing the system (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0003, 0050, 0054, 0113-0114, and 0118: collecting and processing data using a weight average to produce a statistical condition metric, i.e. a statistically-relevant foundation of the analyzed data), the system comprising:
a memory having a first database with a plurality of weighting factors (see paragraph 0113: device is programmed to use a plurality of weight factors, must be stored in a memory for the processor to use the weights), thresholds (see paragraphs 0091 and 0095: discloses a plurality of threshold used in the analysis, must be stored in a memory for the process to use the thresholds), and specifications related to railroad tracks (see paragraphs 0088, 0092, and 0096: measurement specification and expected tie-to-tie distance, must be stored in a memory for the processor to use the measurement specification and expected distance, also discusses specification related to tie measurement quality, each of the parameters listed fall under to scope of specification related to railroad tracks); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to execute machine-readable instructions, to perform program steps comprising (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0017 and 0045: computer processor, implementing software programs, for storing and analyzing data, must be coupled to memory to store data and access software):
receiving data from a plurality of sources related to a railroad track or a railroad infrastructure (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0036 and 0050-0051: processing device receives data from a plurality of data sources in relation the railroad track measurements);
transforming (e.g., via compilations of the obtained image data; see paragraph 0056) the data into typed, numerically-represented data (e.g., the image data that characterizes a particular type of tie plate such as missing tie plates, misaligned tie plates, or sunken tie plates) based on a condition of the data, wherein the typed, numerically-represented data comprise data points having respective types (missing tie plates, misaligned tie plates, or sunken tie plates) that are determined by a combination of a data type (e.g., a portion of the contour representing a tie plate occurs or does not occur within the region R) and a corresponding condition (paragraphs 0067-0070);
determining what a given particular data point represents based on a type of the data (paragraphs 0067-0070);
assigning, for each typed data point, a stored type identifier and condition identifier (e.g., paragraphs 0069, 0079, 0083: the system must store the variety of tie metrics related to their condition, e.g., misaligned tie plate or sunken tie plate, etc., such that based on these condition metrics, a grade or score can be computed for each tie by using weighted values of the tie metrics);
receiving weighting factors associated with particular railroad constituents, and computing one or more scores for the typed, numerically-represented data using the weighting factors (paragraphs 0083, 0113); and
generating a concurrently computed, statistically weighted data foundation including the typed, numerically-represented data, the weighting factors, and the one or more scores (paragraph 0014: the tie condition grade, tie location and spacing between ties with a tie condition grade above or below a grade threshold are correlated to create a tie replacement plan; see also paragraphs 0080, 0114-0121).
Kainer does not expressly disclose: wherein said configuration of the processor includes configuration to spawn more than one computer process to concurrently process different railroad data types to perform the program steps, including computing, by each concurrent computer process, said one or more scores (note, the instant claim does not require: each of the computer processes concurrently processes a distinct railroad data type among said different railroad data types).
Ferrell discloses a processor, and wherein the configuration of the processor to execute the machine-readable instructions includes configuration to spawn (e.g., give birth) more than one computer process concurrently, wherein the concurrent more than one computer processes are configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to concurrently process data to perform the program steps (see paragraph 0038: the image generation control logic (200) can leverage the ability of a computer platform to spawn multiple processes and threads by processing entries in a database simultaneously.).
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 Kainer with the teachings of Ferrell, i.e. utilizing multi-threaded processing, for the advantageous benefit of improving the speed and efficiency of the computational process when compared to using a single processing thread. Once modified, the modification would meet the limitations of wherein the configuration of the processor to execute the machine-readable instructions includes configuration to spawn a first computer process configured to execute a first set of machine-readable instructions from the machine-readable instructions to perform a first set of program steps of Kainer.
Ferrell is silent on: said more than one computer processes configured to concurrently process different railroad data types, including computing, by each concurrent computer process, said one or more scores. However, it is deemed that the modification of Kainer in view of Ferrell’s technique of the multi-threaded processing discussed above renders the limitation in question obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art wishing to leverage the ability of a computer platform would have recognized that the results of such a modification, as an intended use of Ferrell’s multithreading paradigm, were predictable for improving the speed and efficiency of Kainer’s data processing/calculation, and the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kainer, previously modified, further discloses wherein the data includes tie data, fixed asset data, anchor data, grade data, ballast data, joint data, rail equipment incident data, rail defects data, velocity data, maintenance data, rail removal data, curve data, distressing work data, crossovers, turnouts, crossings, diamonds, bridges, or overpasses (see paragraphs 0012, 0054, and 0119: data include railroad tie data, can also identify an open deck bridge, i.e. data could be data related to bridges, system also identifies defects from data, i.e. rail defects data).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kainer, previously modified, further discloses wherein the data is numerical data (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0051: data received includes distance data, i.e. encoder or odometer, generate numerical data).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kainer, previously modified, further discloses wherein the weighting factors include fixed object multipliers, bad tie multiplier, poor anchor condition multipliers, ballast fouling index multipliers, rail defect multipliers, joint multipliers, grade multipliers, speed change multipliers, braking distance multipliers, fair anchor condition multipliers, rail relay multipliers, or continuous welded rail multipliers (see paragraph 0013: weight factor to each condition metric of the railroad tie, computes a condition grade, i.e. railroad tie is a fixed object, i.e. fixed object multiplies, related to tie defects, bad tie multipliers).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kainer, previously modified, further discloses wherein the data foundation is associated with asset locations (see paragraphs 0113-0114 and 0118: processing data using a weight average to produce a statistical condition metric, i.e. a statistically-relevant foundation of the analyzed data, statistical weighted tie score computed for each tie location).
9. Claims 6, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kainer in view of Ferrell, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Bhattacharjya (US 20140200830) and Kernwein (US 20140277824).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kainer and Ferrell do not expressly disclose determining data related to work performed on a track within a particular time frame; indicating rail events that occurred at particular section of track; and indicating if a section of track is subject to a particular speed change within a particular distance.
Bhattacharjya discloses determining data related to work performed on a track within a particular time frame (see paragraph 0006: historically determined costs associated with previous comparable repairs).
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 Kainer with the teachings of Bhattacharjya, i.e. determining cost associated with pervious comparable repairs, for the advantageous benefit of incorporating such information when determining a repair decision for current rail defects.
The combination of Kainer, Ferrell and Bhattacharjya does not expressly disclose indicating rail events that occurred at particular section of track; and indicating if a section of track is subject to a particular speed change within a particular distance.
Kernwein discloses indicating rail events that occurred at particular section of track (see paragraph 0022 and 0040: determining speed restrictions based on detected track defects/events in relation to a tract segment); and indicating if a section of track is subject to a particular speed change within a particular distance (see paragraph 0022 and 0040-0041: determining speed restrictions, or withdrawal of associated speed restrictions, for track segments).
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 combination of Kainer, Ferrell and Bhattacharjya with the teachings Kernwein, i.e. generating and posting speed restrictions, for the advantageous benefit of promoting safe travels around problematic track segments.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Kainer, Ferrell and Bhattacharjya does not expressly disclose mapping asset locations with respect to the same railroad track.
Kernwein discloses mapping asset locations with respect to the same railroad track (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0009 and 0035: detecting and reporting defect locations as the train travels over the trailway tracks; and see paragraphs 0022: defects correspond to assets, i.e. ballast, ties, or other railroad track structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify he combination of Kainer, Ferrell and Bhattacharjya with the teachings Kernwein, i.e. representing the data on a track map, for the advantageous benefit of visually displaying to a user the type and location of the track defect.
10. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kainer in view of Ferrell, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Hill (US 20100088141).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Kainer and Ferrell does not expressly disclose wherein the numerical data includes a number of curves within a proximity threshold of an asset.
Hill discloses a form with maintenance data wherein the numerical data includes a number of curves within a proximity threshold of an asset (see Fig. 4a: data on form includes number of curves within the segment, i.e. withing a proximity threshold of an asset, proximity threshold nor the asset itself is defined in the claim, encompasses the segment).
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 Kainer with the teachings of Hill, gathering data including the number of curves in a track section, for the advantageous benefit of producing a maintenance report indicating the number of curves in the track section of concern.
11. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kainer in view of Ferrell, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Kernwein (US 20140277824) and Madsen (US 20140365046).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kainer discloses receiving data related to a ballast fouling index (see paragraph 0100: system obtains data relating to where mud fouls the ballast, i.e. data relating to a ballast fouling index).
The combination of Kainer and Ferrell does not expressly disclose determining which sections of the railroad track require particular speed changes within particular distances; and determining grade changes in the railroad track.
Kernwein discloses determining which sections of the railroad track require particular speed changes within particular distances (see paragraph 0022 and 0040-0041: determining speed restrictions, or withdrawal of associated speed restrictions, for track segments).
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 Kainer with the teachings Kernwein, i.e. generating and posting speed restrictions, for the advantageous benefit of promoting safe travels around problematic track segments.
The combination of Kainer, Ferrell and Kernwein does not expressly disclose determining grade changes in the railroad track.
Madsen discloses determining grade changes in the railroad track (see paragraphs 0017: this location information may enable controller 55 to take into consideration upcoming changes in grade or other characteristics of track 41 that may affect the amount of power required from locomotive 18 to achieve parameters such as travel speed, elapsed travel time, fuel efficiency, reduction in emissions, and life expectancy of various components).
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 combination of Kainer, Ferrell and Kernwein with the teachings Madsen, i.e. determining grade changes in the track, for the advantageous benefit of the using the characteristics of the track to appropriate adjust control parameters to achieve a desired travel speed, elapsed travel time, fuel efficiency, reduction in emissions, and life expectancy of various components.
12. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kainer in view of Ferrell, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Brooks (US 20190161101).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Kainer and Ferrell does not expressly disclose determining a proximity threshold around an asset location.
Brooks discloses a vehicle control system that utilized a determined proximity threshold around an asset location (see paragraphs 0036 and 0057-0058: determining a proximity threshold, maybe a function of an installed signaling system (e.g., a function of block size) or a function of other relevant locations).
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 Kainer with the teachings of Brooks, i.e. incorporate proximity threshold distances, for the advantageous benefit of computing safety margin distances in relation to a safe stopping distance for the train traveling on the tracks.
Conclusion
13. 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 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights