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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/595,284 received on 11/20/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, and 3-18 are amended, currently pending, and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Upon review of amended title, the Specification objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Except for the following arguments, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 13-16) with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims are primarily raised in support of the amendments, which are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejections below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (Remarks at pg. 15) “Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in Claim 1.”, Examiner notes that as documented in the Office Action dated 08/27/2025, claim 1 is not determined to recite an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping – see par. [0012] of the Office Action dated 08/27/2025. The claims determined to recite said abstract idea are claims 5, and 6 – see par. [0015] of said Office Action. As documented in the §101 rejections section below, claims 5, and 6 recite the following limitations, which are directed to the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping:
From claim 5: the processing circuitry is further configured to recursively calculate the evaluation value with the plurality of trains sequentially allocated in descending order of the priority ranks to the plurality of operations in ascending chronological order of the departure times and exchange allocations of the allocated trains to the operations based on the evaluation value, detect an allocation pattern with which the evaluation value is minimized or reduced to a threshold value or smaller
From Claim 6: generate an evaluation function that calculates an evaluation value based on a sum of first variables indicating whether two trains need to be merged or split for each of the durations and each pair of two trains, and calculate values of the second variables by minimizing or quasi-minimizing the evaluation value under the constraint, and produces the operation plan based on the values of the second variables.
Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections have been updated to address the amendments.
Response to §103 arguments – Except for the following arguments, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 16-18) with respect to the §103 rejections previously applied to the claims are primarily raised in support of the amendments, which are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §103 rejections below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (Remarks at pgs. 16-17) “In more detail, in regard to the subject matter of amended Claim 1, for example, which recites, "a processing circuitry configured to ... produce the operation plan based on at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number, the merge iteration number being a number of times that the merge work is performed, the split iteration number being a number of times that the split work is performed." the Office Action relies on "Yamashita Fig. 8: S805 Merge at first station and divide at last station among same stations, S806 Extract operation change and timetable change included in schedule, S807 Compare schedule to original schedule and set different parts as schedule change" as meeting the identified claim feature.)" as teaching the noted claim feature. Applicant respectfully disagrees, as there is no mention in Yamashita of --a number of times that the merge work is performed," or "a number of times that the split work is performed" as recited in the amended claims”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as documented in the Office Action dated 08/27/2025, as well as the instant office action, in at least Fig. 8, Yamashita discloses steps to incorporate merges and splits into the planning by looking for situations that require a merged train, and planning for a merge at the first station, and a split at the last station of the merged train operation, followed by extracting the information. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider these actions as equivalent to Applicant’s limitation of using merge iterations, and split iterations, to produce an operating plan (see par. [0113-0114]).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (Remarks at pg. 17) “However, "suppressing the number of merge trains" as mentioned by Tomiyama is not the same as --to produce the operation plan by minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number, the merge iteration number being a number of times that the merge work is performed, the split iteration number being a number of times that the split work is performed or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller--, as claimed.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret, under BRI, “suppressing the number of merged trains” as equivalent to “minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number”.
Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections have been updated to address the amendments.
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, and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of those findings is provided below, in accordance with the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (published on 01/07/2019 in Fed. Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the “2019 PEG”) and further clarified in the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” published on 10/17/2019) and as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claims 1, and 3-16 are directed to a device (i.e., Manufacture), claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e., Process), and claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., Manufacture). Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claim 1 recites train allocation processing device. As drafted, the limitations recited by claim 1 fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claim 1 limitations that fall under this abstract idea are:
a processing circuitry configured to acquire plural forms of information, including information on a plurality of operations each including an operation duration, and information on patterns of numbers of vehicles of a plurality of small operations in a case where each operation of the plurality of operations is divided into the plurality of small operations; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step to “acquire plural forms of information” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
and produce the operation plan by (i) dividing each operation into one or more small operations in accordance with an input splitting scheme; and (ii) allocating, to each small operation, one small train obtained by dividing a train in accordance with the input splitting scheme, wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations having respective operation durations which do not overlap each other, (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “produce the operation plan”, “dividing each operation”, and “allocating” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
and merge work of two or more trains is needed to allocate the two or more trains to one of the plurality of operations, and split work of the merged two or more trains is needed to allocate the merged two or more trains to different ones of the plurality of operations; (The steps to “merge work”, “split work”, and “allocate” the trains could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
the processing circuitry further configured to produce the operation plan by minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number, the merge iteration number being a number of times that the merge work is performed, the split iteration number being a number of times that the split work is performed or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller. (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps “produce the operation plan”, and “minimizing” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.).
Independent claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium with limitations that are largely similar to the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis applies to claim 18.
Independent claim 17 recites a method with the following abstract limitations:
acquiring information, including, information on a plurality of operations each including an operation duration, information on a number of vehicles necessary for execution of each of the plurality of operations, and train information including a number of vehicles included in each of a plurality of trains mergeable or splittable among two or more trains; (The step for “acquiring information” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
producing an operation plan by allocating one or more trains to each of the plurality of operations, a total number of vehicles included in the allocated one or more trains to each of the plurality of operations matches the number of vehicles necessary for the operation, wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations, the operation durations of the two or more operations do not overlap each other, (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the step to “producing an operation plan”, and “allocating” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
merge work of two or more trains is needed to allocate the two or more trains to one of the plurality of operations, and split work of the merged two or more trains is needed to allocate the merged two or more trains to different ones of the plurality of operations, (The steps to “merge work”, “split work”, and “allocate” the trains could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.);
and producing the operation plan by minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number, the merge iteration number being a number of times that the merge work is performed, the split iteration number being a number of times that the split work is performed or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller. (The steps “producing the operation plan”, and “minimizing” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper.).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B recited by independent claims 1/17/18 are: processing circuitry, one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains, moving object, computer program and computer-readable medium.
Dependent claims 3-16 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements for consideration under said steps. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract ideas as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Additionally, dependent claims 5, and 6 recite limitations that fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping for mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). As dependent from claim 6, claims 7-14 inherit the same abstract idea introduced by claim 6. The claim limitations are:
From claim 5: the processing circuitry is further configured to recursively calculate the evaluation value with the plurality of trains sequentially allocated in descending order of the priority ranks to the plurality of operations in ascending chronological order of the departure times and exchange allocations of the allocated trains to the operations based on the evaluation value, detect an allocation pattern with which the evaluation value is minimized or reduced to a threshold value or smaller (The steps to “calculate the evaluation value” is directed to mathematical calculations.);
From Claim 6:
generate an evaluation function that calculates an evaluation value based on a sum of first variables indicating whether two trains need to be merged or split for each of the durations and each pair of two trains, (The step for “calculates the evaluation value based on a sum of first variables” is directed to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations.);
calculate values of the second variables by minimizing or quasi-minimizing the evaluation value under the constraint, and produces the operation plan based on the values of the second variables. (The step for “calculates values of the second variables” is directed to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations.).
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely processing circuitry, computer readable medium, and computer program from the independent claims, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With respect to the one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains, these additional elements have been considered under Step 2A Prong Two, however the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to provide a technical improvement or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The concept of using a processor to acquire data on a one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains only limits the field of the data that is being acquired by the processor and therefore the one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field (i.e., management of trains). Therefore, these additional elements merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to the moving object, the moving object has been considered under Step 2A Prong Two, however the moving object is recited at a high level of generality and fails to provide a technical improvement or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-16 recite the same abstract ideas (“Mental Processes”) as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same additional elements addressed. Additionally, claim 5-14 recite limitations that also fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely processing circuitry, computer readable medium, and computer program from the independent claims. These additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the computing additional elements at a high level of generality, such as in: [0037] The train allocation plan producer 15 corresponds to a processing unit or a processing circuitry configured to produce an operation plan (train allocation plan) according to the present embodiment. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With respect to the one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains, these additional elements have been considered under Step 2B, however the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to provide a technical improvement or otherwise add significantly more to the abstract idea. The concept of using a processor to acquire data on a one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains only limits the field of the data that is being acquired by the processor and therefore the one or more mergeable or splittable trains / plurality of trains / one or more trains are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field (i.e., management of trains). Therefore, these additional elements merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to the moving object, the moving object has been considered under Step 2B, however the moving object is recited at a high level of generality and fails to provide a technical improvement or otherwise add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, even if the acquire / acquiring information step is interpreted as an additional element, this activity at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the acquire / acquiring information extra-solution activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-16 recite the same abstract ideas as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself and an additional abstract idea along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed above under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, which is incorporated herein.
The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 20220335351 A1, hereinafter “Yamashita”), in view of Tomiyama et al. (EP 2762382 A1, hereinafter “Tomiyama”), in further view of Iijima et al, US 20190208487 A1, hereinafter “Iijima”).
Regarding claims 1/18: Yamashita teaches a processing device comprising processing circuitry ([0147] In addition, a part or all of the above configurations, functions, processing units, processing methods, and the like may be implemented by hardware through, for example, design using an integrated circuit. The configurations, functions, and the like described above may be realized by software by a processor interpreting and executing a program for realizing the respective functions.), a method ([0008] The invention proposes a resource operation planning assistance apparatus and a resource operation planning assistance method), and a computer readable medium ([0147] Information such as a program, a table, and a file for realizing each function can be placed in a recording device such as a memory, a hard disk, or a solid state drive (SSD), or in a recording medium such as an IC card, an SD card, or a DVD.) for:
a processing circuitry configured to acquire plural forms of information, including information on a plurality of operations each including an operation duration, and information on patterns of numbers of vehicles of a plurality of small operations in a case where each operation of the plurality of operations is divided into the plurality of small operations; ([0033] The operation planning history information 109 stores trouble information, the train timetable information 110, train set information, and schedule information on a daily basis as a past resource operation planning history. [0052] The number of vehicles 215 is the number of vehicles constituting the train set.; [0053] The schedule represents a series of a train group assigned to one train set. An original schedule of a train set on 2019 Dec. 24 (ID=1) is a planning operated as a train A, a train B, a train C, and a train D. Here, a train refers to an operation from a starting station to an ending station.; [0113] When a corresponding train exists, division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.; [0052] The operation planning 210 is a table that manages each train set 219 as one record, and includes a train set ID 211, a vehicle type 212, a belonging depot 213, a maintenance operation 214, the number of vehicles 215, an overnight stay position 216, trouble information 217, schedule information 220, and the like as items in the record. The train set ID 211 is an ID that uniquely represents the train set. The vehicle type 212 is an ID that represents the type of vehicles constituting the train set. The belonging depot 213 is a depot to which the train set belongs. The maintenance operation 214 is an operation performed in a depot yard scheduled for the train set on the day indicated by the date 201. The number of vehicles 215 is the number of vehicles constituting the train set. The overnight stay position 216 is a final arrival place of the train set on the day indicated by the date 201. The trouble information 217 is information on trouble that has occurred in the train set, such as a vehicle breakdown. The schedule information 220 is information on a schedule taken by the train set indicated by the train set ID 211 on the day indicated by the date 201.; [0053] The schedule information 220 includes an original schedule number 221, an original schedule 222, and an actual schedule 223. The original schedule number 221 is a number that identifies a schedule in which the train set indicated by the train set ID 211 is assigned on the date 201. The original schedule 222 is a row of trains included in the schedule indicated by the original schedule number 221. (The schedule represents a series of a train group assigned to one train set. An original schedule of a train set on 2019 Dec. 24 (ID=1) is a planning operated as a train A, a train B, a train C, and a train D. Here, a train refers to an operation from a starting station to an ending station.) The actual schedule 223 is a row of trains in which the train set indicated by the train set ID 211 is actually assigned on the date 201.);
and produce the operation plan by (i) dividing each operation into one or more small operations in accordance with an input splitting scheme; and (ii) allocating, to each small operation, one small train obtained by dividing a train in accordance with the input splitting scheme, ([0052] The operation planning 210 is a table that manages each train set 219 as one record, and includes a train set ID 211, a vehicle type 212, a belonging depot 213, a maintenance operation 214, the number of vehicles 215, an overnight stay position 216, trouble information 217, schedule information 220, and the like as items in the record. The train set ID 211 is an ID that uniquely represents the train set. The vehicle type 212 is an ID that represents the type of vehicles constituting the train set. The belonging depot 213 is a depot to which the train set belongs. The maintenance operation 214 is an operation performed in a depot yard scheduled for the train set on the day indicated by the date 201. The number of vehicles 215 is the number of vehicles constituting the train set. The overnight stay position 216 is a final arrival place of the train set on the day indicated by the date 201. The trouble information 217 is information on trouble that has occurred in the train set, such as a vehicle breakdown. The schedule information 220 is information on a schedule taken by the train set indicated by the train set ID 211 on the day indicated by the date 201.; [0114] Step S804 checks whether any station is common among travelling stations of the train included in schedules of a plurality of train sets. Specifically, with reference to the station information portion 320 of the train timetable information 110, it is checked whether there is travelling information on any trains having the same train number and the same stations among the trains assigned to schedules having the corresponding train. When the station information portion 320 includes such travelling information, the process proceeds to step S805, and “merge at first station” and “divide at last station” among the same travelling stations is extracted.; [Fig. 10] Train A, Train A (Merged). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the approach to “divide at last station” as equivalent to a splitting scheme.);
and merge work of two or more trains is needed to allocate the two or more trains to one of the plurality of operations, and split work of the merged two or more trains is needed to allocate the merged two or more trains to different ones of the plurality of operations; ([0113] Next, step S803 is a process of checking whether any train belongs to schedules of a plurality of train sets. When a corresponding train exists, division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.; [0129] In an assignment upon merge, (merged) is added to the train name.; [Fig. 10] Train Set 1: Train A, Train Set 4: Train A (Merged); [0128] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a screen display example of the resource operation planning assistance apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment. The present embodiment is illustrated by a display method of representing the schedule by a cross bar with train sets as a vertical axis and the time as a horizontal axis, but may also be illustrated by a timetable diagram that represents the operation by connecting line segments representing the trains with the time as the horizontal axis and a distance as the vertical axis. This screen display example illustrates assignment of the trains to each train set. The assignment of the trains is created on the basis of the original schedule 222 on the planning target day and reflects a current operation status of the train timetable 208. This screen is represented by assignment information 1001, a train set name 1002, and a horizontal axis 1003. The horizontal axis 1003 represents the time. The train set name 1002 represents the train set ID 211 for uniquely identifying the train set. The assignment information 1001 represents the assignment of the trains to the train set illustrated in the train set name 1002. Each assigned train is represented by one cross bar (for example, a cross bar 1006), and the train number 310 (for example, a train name 1004) is displayed near the cross bar.);
the merge iteration number being a number of times that the merge work is performed, the split iteration number being a number of times that the split work is performed ([Fig. 8] S804 Travelling stations are the same; S805 Merge at first station and divide at last station among same stations, S806 Extract operation change and timetable change included in schedule, S807 Compare schedule to original schedule and set different parts as schedule change.; [0113] Next, step S803 is a process of checking whether any train belongs to schedules of a plurality of train sets. When a corresponding train exists, division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.; [0114] Step S804 checks whether any station is common among travelling stations of the train included in schedules of a plurality of train sets. Specifically, with reference to the station information portion 320 of the train timetable information 110, it is checked whether there is travelling information on any trains having the same train number and the same stations among the trains assigned to schedules having the corresponding train. When the station information portion 320 includes such travelling information, the process proceeds to step S805, and “merge at first station” and “divide at last station” among the same travelling stations is extracted.).
Yamashita doesn’t teach:
wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations having respective operation durations which do not overlap each other,
the processing circuitry further configured to produce the operation plan by minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number,
or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller.
Tomiyama teaches:
the processing circuitry further configured to produce the operation plan by minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number, ([0101] Suppressing the Number of Merge Trains as Small as Possible; [0119] limit unwanted separation and merging; Pars. [0026] – [0050] teach the process or incorporating merge candidates into the operation plan, including number of merges, maximum merges; [0119] The condition (4) is the one (separate-merge condition) for carrying out the merging and separating works of the resource at the available location. The separate-merge condition is considered to generate the route of the merge candidate, having mergeable site as the starting point, and the separable site as the end point. The process is intended to limit unwanted separation and merging by sequentially allocating the merge train node to the same route. Therefore, depending on the route for allocating the original train node as the merging counterpart, unwanted separation and merging may occur. If the merge candidate has the pattern "train 5, train 6, train 10", the nodes which represent those trains 5, 6 and 10 are reproduced to generate the merge train node so as to generate the link which allows connection of the merge train nodes of 5, 6 and 10 in series. In the aforementioned state, there is no limitation among the train nodes 5, 6 and 10. For this, those merge train nodes 5, 6 and 10 are allocated to the same route (route I), that is, allocated to the same train set without causing separation and merging on the way. Meanwhile, the original train may take the route of such pattern as "train nodes 5, 7 and 9". Then on the route I, after the train 5 runs as the merge train, the merging counterpart is separated at the terminal station of the train 5 so as to run as the train 6. It is merged with another train set, and the train 6 runs as the merge train. In order to avoid the aforementioned case, the original train node as the merging counterpart is limited under the condition (4).);
or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller. ([0101] Suppressing the Number of Merge Trains as Small as Possible; [0119] limit unwanted separation and merging; Pars. [0026] – [0050] teach the process or incorporating merge candidates into the operation plan, including number of merges, maximum merges; [0119] The condition (4) is the one (separate-merge condition) for carrying out the merging and separating works of the resource at the available location. The separate-merge condition is considered to generate the route of the merge candidate, having mergeable site as the starting point, and the separable site as the end point. The process is intended to limit unwanted separation and merging by sequentially allocating the merge train node to the same route. Therefore, depending on the route for allocating the original train node as the merging counterpart, unwanted separation and merging may occur. If the merge candidate has the pattern "train 5, train 6, train 10", the nodes which represent those trains 5, 6 and 10 are reproduced to generate the merge train node so as to generate the link which allows connection of the merge train nodes of 5, 6 and 10 in series. In the aforementioned state, there is no limitation among the train nodes 5, 6 and 10. For this, those merge train nodes 5, 6 and 10 are allocated to the same route (route I), that is, allocated to the same train set without causing separation and merging on the way. Meanwhile, the original train may take the route of such pattern as "train nodes 5, 7 and 9". Then on the route I, after the train 5 runs as the merge train, the merging counterpart is separated at the terminal station of the train 5 so as to run as the train 6. It is merged with another train set, and the train 6 runs as the merge train. In order to avoid the aforementioned case, the original train node as the merging counterpart is limited under the condition (4).);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Yamashita with Tomiyama’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to limit unwanted separation and merging by sequentially allocating the merge train node to the same route (Tomiyama; [0119]). By incorporating the teachings of Tomiyama, one would’ve been able to minimize merge and split actions.
Tomiyama doesn’t teach:
wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations having respective operation durations which do not overlap each other,
Ijima teaches:
wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations having respective operation durations which do not overlap each other, ([0062] In a case that there are a plurality of vehicles passing through a certain location registration area, the cell ID information 220a is set so that a plurality of cell IDs are not used in the same location registration area at the same time in a plurality of base station devices 200 mounted on the plurality of vehicles. Specifically, a plurality of base station devices 200 belonging to the same location registration area may form a cell using the same cell ID in the same location registration area in non-overlapping time slots.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Iijima’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to store a cell ID usable in the location registration area including the traveling route as the cell ID information 220a (Iijima; [0061]). By incorporating the teachings of Iijima, one would’ve been able to assign trains to multiple, non-overlapping operations.
Regarding Claim 3: Yamashita doesn’t teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to produce the operation plan by minimizing a sum of the merge iteration number and the split iteration number or by reducing the sum to a threshold value or smaller.
Tomiyama further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to produce the operation plan by minimizing a sum of the merge iteration number and the split iteration number or by reducing the sum to a threshold value or smaller. ([0117] to obtain the set of round routes for minimizing the sum total of the weight. The condition (1) represents that the respective nodes are only contained in one round route at most in the set of round routes as the solution, and the condition (2) represents that the number of time that the node other than the merge train appears is equal to the number of nodes other than the merge train. Combination of the conditions (1) and (2) allows the node other than the merge train is only contained in one round route only once in the set of the round routes as the solution. The node of the merge train is not contained in the round route, or may be contained therein only once.; [0119] limit unwanted separation and merging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Tomiyama’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to generate the route of the merge candidate (Tomiyama; [0119]). By incorporating the teachings of Tomiyama, one would’ve been able to minimize the sum of merge and split actions.
Regarding Claim 4: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire work plan information indicating works to be performed on the plurality of trains and time slots in which the works are to be performed, ([Fig. 3] Train Number 310, Station Name 321, Planned Arrival Time 322, Planned Departure Time 323, Planned Used Track 324; [0055] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of the train timetable information 110. The train timetable 208 in the operation planning history information 109 is also stored in the same format. In the train timetable information 110, each train is managed as one record. Items in the record include a station information portion 320 and a train number 310 that represents a name of the train.; [0056] In the station information portion 320, a data table that represents travelling information such as an arrival time, a departure time, and a used track in each station of the train is stored for each travelling station. As for the travelling information, information for each station where the train indicated by the train number 310 is travelling is managed as one record, and the station information is stored in an order of travelling. Items in the record include a station name 321, a planned arrival time 322, a planned departure time 323, a planned used track 324, a result (predicted) arrival time 325, a result (predicted) departure time 326, and a result (predicted) used track 327.; [0057] The station name 321 is a name of the travelling station. The planned arrival time 322, the planned departure time 323, and the planned used track 324 represent an arrival time, a departure time, and a used track at the time of planning at the station indicated by the station name 321 of the train indicated by the train number 310. The result (predicted) arrival time 325, the result (predicted) departure time 326, and the result (predicted) used track 327 represent a result or predicted arrival time, a result or predicted departure time, and a result or predicted used track at the station indicated by the station name 321 of the train indicated by the train number 310.);
allocate the one or more trains to each of the plurality of operations with a constraint of the acquired work plan information, ([0052] The operation planning 210 is a table that manages each train set 219 as one record, and includes a train set ID 211, a vehicle type 212, a belonging depot 213, a maintenance operation 214, the number of vehicles 215, an overnight stay position 216, trouble information 217, schedule information 220, and the like as items in the record.; Fig. 2);
detect constraint violation in a case where the work is unable to be performed on the train in the time slot due to the operation allocated to the train, and ([0039] The constraint condition information 114 stores various constraint conditions to be considered in an operation planning creation process by the planning creation unit 120.; [0041] In the constraint condition information 114 and the evaluation index information 115, possible constraint conditions and the evaluation indices may be stored in advance or may be updated as needed. In addition, input of conditions and indices to be considered may be accepted from the user.);
produce the operation plan based on an evaluation value depending on a number of times of detection of the constraint violation and on at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number. ([0041] In the constraint condition information 114 and the evaluation index information 115, possible constraint conditions and the evaluation indices may be stored in advance or may be updated as needed. In addition, input of conditions and indices to be considered may be accepted from the user.; [0042] The schedule change proposal information 116 stores the operation planning change and the train timetable change extracted by the operation change extraction unit 121 from the operation planning proposals created by the operation planning creation process of the planning creation unit 120.).
Regarding Claim 5: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the operation durations of the plurality of operations each include a departure time and an arrival time, (Fig. 3: 322 Planned Arrival Time, 323 Planned Departure Time);
the plurality of trains have priority ranks, and ([0008] presenting the solution proposal together with a priority order);
the processing circuitry is further configured to recursively calculate the evaluation value with the plurality of trains sequentially allocated in descending order of the priority ranks to the plurality of operations in ascending chronological order of the departure times and exchange allocations of the allocated trains to the operations based on the evaluation value, (Fig. 5: S502 Create schedule candidate list for each train set – S506 Calculate evaluation index; [0013] The change proposal is presented together with the priority order);
detect an allocation pattern with which the evaluation value is minimized or reduced to a threshold value or smaller ([0010 the history learning unit is configured to generate the schedule change rule by learning a tendency in a schedule change present in the operation planning history using training data for changing a weight of the adoption rate of the schedule change according to a magnitude of an evaluation index; [0134] The items of the table 1100 include a transported volume 1107 and a delay time 1108, which are examples of the evaluation indices, and display the indices stored in the evaluation index information 115. An underline of a numerical value indicates that this value is optimal as compared to those of the other change proposals.);
and produce the operation plan based on the detected pattern. ([0008] The invention proposes a resource operation planning assistance apparatus and a resource operation planning assistance method for automatically generating a change tendency from a past resource operation planning change history, using the change tendency to generate a solution proposal to an inconsistency in an operation planning, and presenting the solution proposal together with a priority order.).
Regarding Claim 6: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the plurality of operations are determined for each of a plurality of durations, (Fig. 3: Train Number 310, Planned Arrival Time 322, Planned Departure Time 323);
and the processing circuitry is further configured to generate, by using second variables that indicate whether to allocate the plurality of trains to the plurality of operations for each of the durations, a constraint that the one or more trains a total number of vehicles of which matches the total number of vehicles required for each of the plurality of operations are allocated to each the plurality of operations, ([0092] Step S506 calculates the values of the respective evaluation indices stored in the evaluation index information 115 for the operation planning proposal generated in step S504 and the train timetable change and the operation change extracted in step S505. For example, the number of cancelled trains, the number of train sets necessary for the operation change, and the number of final overnight stay position violations are calculated.);
generate an evaluation function that calculates an evaluation value based on a sum of first variables indicating whether two trains need to be merged or split for each of the durations and each pair of two trains, ([0113] division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.);
calculate values of the second variables by minimizing or quasi-minimizing the evaluation value under the constraint, and produce the operation plan based on the values of the second variables. ([0134] The items of the table 1100 include a transported volume 1107 and a delay time 1108, which are examples of the evaluation indices, and display the indices stored in the evaluation index information 115. The transported volume 1107 and the delay time 1108 in the present example display a transported volume and a delay time obtained by executing the change content 1106, and then creating plans of the other train sets by the planning creation unit 120 in step S504 and performing calculation in step S506. The transported volume indicates a magnitude of increase or decrease in a total transported volume after application of the operation planning proposal created by the planning creation unit 120 in step S504 with respect to a total transported volume before the application. The transported volume is calculated by a value obtained by multiplying a passenger capacity of the train set by a mileage. The delay time indicates a magnitude of increase or decrease in a total delay time before and after the application of the operation planning proposal created by the planning creation unit 120 in step S504. An underline of a numerical value indicates that this value is optimal as compared to those of the other change proposals.).
Regarding Claim 7: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein based on an operation connection condition that operations are allocated in an order of a first operation and a second operation, the processing circuitry is further configured to add a penalty value to the evaluation value in a case where an operation other than the second operation is allocated to an optional train after the first operation. ([0092] Step S506 calculates the values of the respective evaluation indices stored in the evaluation index information 115 for the operation planning proposal generated in step S504 and the train timetable change and the operation change extracted in step S505. For example, the number of cancelled trains, the number of train sets necessary for the operation change, and the number of final overnight stay position violations are calculated.).
Regarding Claim 8: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein for each of the durations, the processing circuitry is further configured to add, based on a designated operation condition that designates any operation allocatable to each train among the plurality of operations, a penalty value to the evaluation value in a case where an operation not designated by the designated operation condition is allocated to the train. ([0129] In an assignment upon merge, (merged) is added to the train name. For example, a symbol 1007 indicates that a train set 4 travels while being coupled to the train A of a train set 1. On this screen, a symbol 1005 is a violation mark illustrating a violation, and a symbol 1008 is a violation bar. The violation mark 1005 is a mark displayed for assignment that cannot be operated as planned, such as an operation connection time shortage or an operation connection station violation. The violation bar 1008 represents an assigned train having a violation.).
Regarding Claim 15: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the plurality of trains are each a railway train. ([0034] The train timetable information 110 defines an itinerary of a transport service for each minimum unit thereof. For example, a minimum unit in the transport service in a railway is a train, and a train having a train number is defined by stations where the train stops or passes from a starting station to an ending station, and an arrival time and departure time, or a passing time of each station.).
Regarding Claim 16: Yamashita further teaches:
further comprising a controlling circuitry configured to control moving of the plurality of trains based on the operation plan, wherein the plurality of trains are each movable on a target route. ([0088] Step S502 is a process of generating the schedule candidate list information 113 with reference to the operation planning target train set information 112 for each train set to be planned, that is, each train set whose schedule includes trains to travel starting from the current time on the schedule.; [0034] The train timetable information 110 defines an itinerary of a transport service for each minimum unit thereof. For example, a minimum unit in the transport service in a railway is a train, and a train having a train number is defined by stations where the train stops or passes from a starting station to an ending station, and an arrival time and departure time, or a passing time of each station.).
Regarding Claim 17: Yamashita further teaches:
acquiring information, including, information on a plurality of operations each including an operation duration, information on a number of vehicles necessary for execution of each of the plurality of operations, and train information including a number of vehicles included in each of a plurality of trains mergeable or splittable among two or more trains; ([0033] The operation planning history information 109 stores trouble information, the train timetable information 110, train set information, and schedule information on a daily basis as a past resource operation planning history. [0052] The number of vehicles 215 is the number of vehicles constituting the train set.; [0053] The schedule represents a series of a train group assigned to one train set. An original schedule of a train set on 2019 Dec. 24 (ID=1) is a planning operated as a train A, a train B, a train C, and a train D. Here, a train refers to an operation from a starting station to an ending station.; [0113] When a corresponding train exists, division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.);
producing an operation plan by allocating one or more trains to each of the plurality of operations, a total number of vehicles included in the allocated one or more trains to each of the plurality of operations matches the number of vehicles necessary for the operation, ([0009] A preferable example of the resource operation planning assistance apparatus of the invention includes: a schedule candidate creation unit configured to create a schedule candidate of each resource; [0097] Step S601 calculates the number of trains included in the schedule starting from the train that needs to change. As a calculation method, for example, data having, on the original schedule 222, the same trains as the original schedule 222 of the schedule candidate creation target train set in the operation planning target train set information 112 may be extracted from the operation planning history information 109, so as to calculate the total number of trains that can be assumed.);
merge work of two or more trains is needed to allocate the two or more trains to one of the plurality of operations, and split work of the merged two or more trains is needed to allocate the merged two or more trains to different ones of the plurality of operations, ([0113] Next, step S803 is a process of checking whether any train belongs to schedules of a plurality of train sets. When a corresponding train exists, division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.; [0129] In an assignment upon merge, (merged) is added to the train name.; [Fig. 10] Train Set 1: Train A, Train Set 4: Train A (Merged); [0128] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a screen display example of the resource operation planning assistance apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment. The present embodiment is illustrated by a display method of representing the schedule by a cross bar with train sets as a vertical axis and the time as a horizontal axis, but may also be illustrated by a timetable diagram that represents the operation by connecting line segments representing the trains with the time as the horizontal axis and a distance as the vertical axis. This screen display example illustrates assignment of the trains to each train set. The assignment of the trains is created on the basis of the original schedule 222 on the planning target day and reflects a current operation status of the train timetable 208. This screen is represented by assignment information 1001, a train set name 1002, and a horizontal axis 1003. The horizontal axis 1003 represents the time. The train set name 1002 represents the train set ID 211 for uniquely identifying the train set. The assignment information 1001 represents the assignment of the trains to the train set illustrated in the train set name 1002. Each assigned train is represented by one cross bar (for example, a cross bar 1006), and the train number 310 (for example, a train name 1004) is displayed near the cross bar.);
and producing the operation plan by minimizing at least one of a merge iteration number or a split iteration number, the merge iteration number being a number of times that the merge work is performed, the split iteration number being a number of times that the split work is performed ([Fig. 8] S804 Travelling stations are the same; S805 Merge at first station and divide at last station among same stations, S806 Extract operation change and timetable change included in schedule, S807 Compare schedule to original schedule and set different parts as schedule change.; [0113] Next, step S803 is a process of checking whether any train belongs to schedules of a plurality of train sets. When a corresponding train exists, division and merge determination is performed on each corresponding train in processes of steps S804 and S805.);
Yamashita doesn’t teach:
wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations, the operation durations of the two or more operations do not overlap each other,
or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller.
Tomiyama teaches:
or by reducing at least one of the merge iteration number or the split iteration number to a threshold value or smaller. (([0101] Suppressing the Number of Merge Trains as Small as Possible; [0119] limit unwanted separation and merging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Tomiyama’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to limit unwanted separation and merging by sequentially allocating the merge train node to the same route (Tomiyama; [0119]). By incorporating the teachings of Tomiyama, one would’ve been able to minimize merge and split actions.
Tomiyama doesn’t teach:
wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations having respective operation durations which do not overlap each other,
Ijima teaches:
wherein the plurality of trains are repeatedly allocatable to two or more operations, the operation durations of the two or more operations do not overlap each other, ([0062] In a case that there are a plurality of vehicles passing through a certain location registration area, the cell ID information 220a is set so that a plurality of cell IDs are not used in the same location registration area at the same time in a plurality of base station devices 200 mounted on the plurality of vehicles. Specifically, a plurality of base station devices 200 belonging to the same location registration area may form a cell using the same cell ID in the same location registration area in non-overlapping time slots.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Iijima’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to store a cell ID usable in the location registration area including the traveling route as the cell ID information 220a (Iijima; [0061]). By incorporating the teachings of Iijima, one would’ve been able to assign trains to multiple, non-overlapping operations.
Claims 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 20220335351 A1, hereinafter “Yamashita”), in view of Tomiyama et al. (EP 2762382 A1, hereinafter “Tomiyama”), in further view of Iijima et al, US 20190208487 A1, hereinafter “Iijima”), as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Morariu et al. (US 20060074544 A1, hereinafter “Morariu”).
Regarding Claim 9: Yamashita doesn’t teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as allocation frequency of a first train among the plurality of trains is higher or as a sum of operation times or operation distances of the allocated operations is longer.
Morariu teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as allocation frequency of a first train among the plurality of trains is higher or as a sum of operation times or operation distances of the allocated operations is longer. ([0069] As employed herein, the term "re-planning score" (e.g., a numerical value) shall expressly include, but not be limited to, a numerical representation of changes to traffic conditions and schedule changes (schedule changes that are not close to the current time). For example, the contribution of different event types (changes) may be evaluated considering the specifics of each event type. The relative importance of each event type may be quantified by a corresponding weighting factor.; [0070] As employed herein, the term "special events" shall expressly include, but not be limited to, operationally significant traffic conditions, which are not part of the re-planning score; train order changes when arriving in the planned area; trains not following the prescribed movement plan; changes to train schedules effective close to the current time; and changes to the train consist.; [0182] The GapAnalysis module 200 (FIG. 6) calculates the re-planning score 214 based on track length of track section. One of skill in the art would reasonably interpret track length as distances of the allocated operations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Morariu’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to choose the actual value of the two corresponding specific weights (Morariu; [0206]). By incorporating the teachings of Morariu, one would’ve been able to add a penalty value for operation distances of the allocated operations.
Regarding Claim 10: Yamashita doesn’t teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as allocation frequency of a first train among the plurality of trains is lower or as a sum of operation times or operation distances of the allocated operations is shorter.
Morariu further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as allocation frequency of a first train among the plurality of trains is lower or as a sum of operation times or operation distances of the allocated operations is shorter. (([0069] As employed herein, the term "re-planning score" (e.g., a numerical value) shall expressly include, but not be limited to, a numerical representation of changes to traffic conditions and schedule changes (schedule changes that are not close to the current time). For example, the contribution of different event types (changes) may be evaluated considering the specifics of each event type. The relative importance of each event type may be quantified by a corresponding weighting factor.; [0070] As employed herein, the term "special events" shall expressly include, but not be limited to, operationally significant traffic conditions, which are not part of the re-planning score; train order changes when arriving in the planned area; trains not following the prescribed movement plan; changes to train schedules effective close to the current time; and changes to the train consist.; [0182] The GapAnalysis module 200 (FIG. 6) calculates the re-planning score 214 based on track length of track section. One of skill in the art would reasonably interpret track length as distances of the allocated operations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Morariu’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to choose the actual value of the two corresponding specific weights (Morariu; [0206]). By incorporating the teachings of Morariu, one would’ve been able to add a penalty value for operation distances of the allocated operations.
Regarding Claim 11: Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to add, based on an allotment impossible operation condition that a condition of a train not allocatable is determined for each of the operations, ([0086] When a delay occurs in an operation timetable of a railway due to occurrence of a vehicle breakdown, an accident, or the like, the resource operation planning assistance apparatus 100 receives delay information and the like from a site or the like, and then displays a graph of the original schedule 222, which is the operation planning of each train set on the current day, on a screen for a user, and issues a warning by displaying a violation mark at a target location on the graph where the operation becomes impossible, such as an insufficient operation connection time between trains or an operation connection station violation, due to a delay of the operation timetable on the screen (described later in FIG. 10).);
Yamashita doesn’t teach:
a penalty value to the evaluation value when an operation not permitted by the allotment impossible operation condition is allocated to the train.
Morariu further teaches:
a penalty value to the evaluation value when an operation not permitted by the allotment impossible operation condition is allocated to the train. ([0069] As employed herein, the term "re-planning score" (e.g., a numerical value) shall expressly include, but not be limited to, a numerical representation of changes to traffic conditions and schedule changes. For example, the contribution of different event types (changes) may be evaluated considering the specifics of each event type. The relative importance of each event type may be quantified by a corresponding weighting factor.; [0070] As employed herein, the term "special events" shall expressly include, but not be limited to, operationally significant traffic conditions, which are not part of the re-planning score; train order changes when arriving in the planned area; trains not following the prescribed movement plan; changes to train schedules effective close to the current time; and changes to the train consist (e.g., adding a car with dangerous goods; significant train length changes). One of skill in the art would interpret a condition of a train not allocatable as an event where no train can be assigned to an operation in the schedule, or a cancelation, which is equivalent to a schedule change.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Morariu’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to minimize the weighted lateness according to a global business objective function modeled discretely using evaluation points (Morariu; [0073]). By incorporating the teachings of Morariu, one would’ve been able to add a penalty value for an impossible allotment.
Regarding Claim 12: Yamashita further teaches:
Wherein a time taken for split work or merge work is determined for each of the trains or each place where the split work or the merge work of the train is performed, and ([0034] The train timetable information 110 defines an itinerary of a transport service for each minimum unit thereof. For example, a minimum unit in the transport service in a railway is a train, and a train having a train number is defined by stations where the train stops or passes from a starting station to an ending station, and an arrival time and departure time, or a passing time of each station. Among these times, a time before a current time is a result time, that is, a time at which an event actually occurs, and a time starting from the current time is a predicted time calculated from an original planning and the result time.; [0061] When an event occurs on the current day and a delay occurs in the train, the train timetable command system sends the predicted time or the result time of the current day as appropriate to update the result (predicted) arrival time 325 and the result (predicted) departure time 326 of the train timetable 208 as appropriate.);
Yamashita doesn’t teach:
the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as the time taken for the split work or the merge work is longer.
Morariu further teaches:
the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as the time taken for the split work or the merge work is longer. ([0069] As employed herein, the term "re-planning score" (e.g., a numerical value) shall expressly include, but not be limited to, a numerical representation of changes to traffic conditions and schedule changes. For example, the contribution of different event types (changes) may be evaluated considering the specifics of each event type. The relative importance of each event type may be quantified by a corresponding weighting factor.; [0070] As employed herein, the term "special events" shall expressly include, but not be limited to, operationally significant traffic conditions, which are not part of the re-planning score; train order changes when arriving in the planned area; trains not following the prescribed movement plan; changes to train schedules effective close to the current time; and changes to the train consist (e.g., adding a car with dangerous goods; significant train length changes). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a longer work time for a split or a merge as a schedule change.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Morariu’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to minimize the weighted lateness according to a global business objective function modeled discretely using evaluation points (Morariu; [0073]). By incorporating the teachings of Morariu, one would’ve been able to add a penalty value for longer split and merge lead times.
Regarding Claim 14: Yamashita further teaches:
Wherein when allocating two or more trains to one of the operations, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an arrangement order in which the two or more trains are merged, and the two or more trains are merged in the arrangement order by the merge work, ([0129] upon merge, (merged) is added to the train name. For example, a symbol 1007 indicates that a train set 4 travels while being coupled to the train A of a train set 1.);
Yamashita doesn’t teach:
the processing circuitry is further configured to add, to the evaluation value, a penalty value in accordance with a split position of a train split from the two or more merged trains by the split work and a merge position of the split train when the split train is merged to another train by the merge work.
Morariu further teaches:
the processing circuitry is further configured to add, to the evaluation value, a penalty value in accordance with a split position of a train split from the two or more merged trains by the split work and a merge position of the split train when the split train is merged to another train by the merge work. ([0069] As employed herein, the term "re-planning score" (e.g., a numerical value) shall expressly include, but not be limited to, a numerical representation of changes to traffic conditions and schedule changes (schedule changes that are not close to the current time). For example, the contribution of different event types (changes) may be evaluated considering the specifics of each event type. The relative importance of each event type may be quantified by a corresponding weighting factor.; [0070] As employed herein, the term "special events" shall expressly include, but not be limited to, operationally significant traffic conditions, which are not part of the re-planning score; train order changes when arriving in the planned area; trains not following the prescribed movement plan; changes to train schedules effective close to the current time; and changes to the train consist (e.g., adding a car with dangerous goods; significant train length changes). Examiner notes that given a split and/or a merge result in adding or subtracting train vehicles to the train, one of skill in the art would reasonably interpret a split or a merge as a significant train length change.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Morariu’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to minimize the weighted lateness according to a global business objective function modeled discretely using evaluation points (Morariu; [0073]). By incorporating the teachings of Morariu, one would’ve been able to add a penalty value in accordance with the split and merge positions.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 20220335351 A1, hereinafter “Yamashita”), in view of Tomiyama et al. (EP 2762382 A1, hereinafter “Tomiyama”), in further view of Iijima et al, US 20190208487 A1, hereinafter “Iijima”), as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Malik (US 20200055530 A1, hereinafter “Malik”), in further view of Morariu et al. (US 20060074544 A1, hereinafter “Morariu”).
Regarding Claim 13: Yamashita further teaches:
when allocating two or more trains to one of the operations, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an arrangement order in which the two or more trains are merged, and the two or more trains are merged in the arrangement order by the merge work, ([0004] Creation of the operation planning change proposal refers to, taking the case of train sets as an example, determining a use planning of each train set (referred to as “schedule”) by assigning the train set to each train without shortage in accordance with an operation planning change.; Fig. 8 teaches a merge or division determination is performed during a planning change when a train belongs to two or more schedules.; Fig. 10 teaches 4 train sets 1002 with ordered arrangements 1001);
Yamashita doesn’t teach:
wherein each of the plurality of trains includes a cab in at least one of vehicles at respective ends,
wherein cabs of leading and tailing vehicles of a train unit of the two or more trains allocated to the operation are used during execution of the operation, and
the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as a sum of use times of each of the cabs included in the plurality of trains is deviated from a target time of each cab.
Malik teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of trains includes a cab in at least one of vehicles at respective ends, ([0042] FIG. 8 depicts the movement of the express train operator 20 forward to the operator cab 24 of the train car 14 that just attached to the front of the express train 18);
wherein cabs of leading and tailing vehicles of a train unit of the two or more trains allocated to the operation are used during execution of the operation, and ([0042] The operator 20 of the prepositioned car 14a that is now coupled to the front of the non-stop express train 18 and is now acting as the lead car 14);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Malik’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to complete the transfer of control to the lead car 14 (Malik; [0042]). By incorporating the teachings of Malik, one would’ve been able to plan for the use of cabs in the trains.
Malik doesn’t teach:
the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as a sum of use times of each of the cabs included in the plurality of trains is deviated from a target time of each cab.
Morariu teaches:
the processing circuitry is further configured to add a larger penalty value to the evaluation value as a sum of use times of each of the cabs included in the plurality of trains is deviated from a target time of each cab. ([0069] As employed herein, the term "re-planning score" (e.g., a numerical value) shall expressly include, but not be limited to, a numerical representation of changes to traffic conditions and schedule changes (schedule changes that are not close to the current time). For example, the contribution of different event types (changes) may be evaluated considering the specifics of each event type. The relative importance of each event type may be quantified by a corresponding weighting factor.; [0070] As employed herein, the term "special events" shall expressly include, but not be limited to, operationally significant traffic conditions, which are not part of the re-planning score; train order changes when arriving in the planned area; trains not following the prescribed movement plan; changes to train schedules effective close to the current time; and changes to the train consist.; [0007] Control systems are employed by railroads to control the movements of trains on their individual properties or track infrastructures. One of skill in the art would reasonably interpret a cab as property of the railroad, and cab allocations as a change to the train consist).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Yamashita with Morariu’s features listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to minimize the weighted lateness according to a global business objective function modeled discretely using evaluation points (Morariu; [0073]). By incorporating the teachings of Morariu, one would’ve been able to add a penalty value in accordance with the split and merge positions.
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 GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/TIMOTHY PADOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625