DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, claim 1 recites “in response to the train satisfies a condition”.
Firstly, Examiner notes that while the claim previously recites “A method for controlling train operation” and “a train autonomous circumambulation system”, the claim does not introduce -a train-. In the limitation noted above, “the train” as recited is considered to be a typographical error.
Secondly, “satisfies” versus -satisfying- appears to be a grammatical error.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting -in response to a train satisfying a condition-.
In regard to claim 2,
Claim 2 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “wherein the determining whether” versus -wherein determining whether-.
Claim 2 appears to contain further grammatical errors, reciting (emphasis added): “in response to the current control level of the train is a communication based train control” and “in response to the current control level of the train is a point control level” versus -in response to the current control level of the train being a communication based train control- and -in response to the current control level of the train being a point control level-.
In regard to claim 4, claim 4 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “after the controlling the train” versus -after controlling the train-.
In regard to claim 6, claim 6 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “before the transmitting” versus -before transmitting-.
In regard to claim 7, claim 7 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “wherein the controlling” versus -wherein controlling-.
In regard to claim 8,
Claim 8 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “wherein the controlling” versus -wherein controlling-.
Further, claim 8, appears to contain a typographical error, reciting “calculating movement authority (MA)” versus -calculating a movement authority-, when said limitation is introduced.
In regard to claim 11, claim 11 recites “in response to the train satisfies a condition”.
Firstly, Examiner notes that while the claim previously recites “A method for controlling train operation” and “a train autonomous circumambulation system”, the claim does not introduce -a train-. In the limitation noted above, “the train” as recited is considered to be a typographical error.
Secondly, “satisfies” versus -satisfying- appears to be a grammatical error.
For the purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as reciting -in response to a train satisfying a condition-.
In regard to claim 12,
Claim 12 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “wherein the determining whether” versus -wherein determining whether-.
Claim 12 appears to contain further grammatical errors, reciting (emphasis added): “in response to the current control level of the train is a communication based train control” and “in response to the current control level of the train is a point control level” versus -in response to the current control level of the train being a communication based train control- and -in response to the current control level of the train being a point control level-.
In regard to claim 14, claim 14 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “after the controlling the train” versus -after controlling the train-.
In regard to claim 16, claim 16 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “before the transmitting” versus -before transmitting-.
In regard to claim 17, claim 17 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “wherein the controlling” versus -wherein controlling-.
In regard to claim 18,
Claim 18 appears to contain a grammatical error, reciting (emphasis added): “wherein the controlling” versus -wherein controlling-.
Further, claim 18, appears to contain a typographical error, reciting “calculating movement authority (MA)” versus -calculating a movement authority- when said limitation is introduced.
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 appears to contain a typographical error, reciting: “in response to the train satisfies a condition” versus -in response to the train satisfying a condition-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US Pub No 2023/0322282).
In regard to claim 1, Feng discloses a method for controlling train operation (see the Abstract: “An urban rail transportation fusion signaling system and method.”), comprising:
receiving an instruction indicating permission to enter a train autonomous circumambulation system (TACS) control level (see Fig 6, the step, “Reading information from the second transponder” which leads to the step, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system”; also see Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the second transponder B2, the car controller 150 switches from the CBTC system to the TACS system”);
in response to a train satisfying a condition for entering the TACS control level (i.e., after receiving affirming data from the second transponder in the process of Fig 6), controlling the train to enter the TACS control level (performing the steps in Fig 6 from, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system” through “Disconnecting the car controller with an equipment in the CBTC system”) and transmitting a TACS control notification to a ground device in a route section in which the train is located (the CBTC system being a ground device, see Paragraph 0003: “a conventional CBTC system (Communication Based-on Train Control, that is a communication based autonomous train control system), which is essentially a signaling system based on train-to-ground communication”, which relies on the wayside equipment shown in Fig 1, noted in the third step of Fig 6 and discussed in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096)), the ground device communicating with the train through the TACS control notification based on a TACS control level protocol (the steps in Fig 6 from, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system” through “Disconnecting the car controller with an equipment in the CBTC system” considered to constitute “TACS control level protocol”, as it as a protocol, i.e., set of steps, leading to full TACS control); and
operating the train based on the TACS control level (see the final step in Fig 6: “Controlling by the car controller, the train to exit the transition zone and to operate in the TACS system zone under the TACS system”).
In regard to claim 2, Feng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the train satisfies the condition for entering the TACS control level comprises:
obtaining a current control level of the train (the first two steps of Fig 6, establishing that the train is under the CBTC and prepared to move to a transition zone; also see Paragraph 0095: “the train T1 operates under the CBTC system from the CBTC system zone to the transition zone);
in response to the current control level of the train being a communication based train control (CBTC) control level, determining that the train satisfies the condition for entering the TACS control level (by proceeding through the third, fourth, and fifth steps of Fig 6; also see Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the first transponder B1”); and
in response to the current control level of the train being a point control level or an interlock control level (considered to be the “transition zone” noted in the first step of Fig 6 and in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096) and the train is in communication with the ground device (considered to be the “wayside management system” noted in the third step of Fig 6 and in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096 and shown in Fig 1) in the route section in which the train is located, determining that the train satisfies the condition for entering the TACS control level (Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the first transponder B1, the car controller 150 is respectively connected with the first wayside management system and an adjacent vehicle T2 in the TACS system zone through the data communication system, so as to obtain line resource allocation information and the location information of the adjacent vehicle; according to the line resource allocation information and the location information of the adjacent vehicle, the car controller 150 calculates the movement authorization of the train T1, so as to perform traffic control on the train T1”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US Pub No 2023/0322282).
In regard to claim 11,
Feng discloses a vehicle on-board controller (VOBC) (car controller 150, see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0006: “a car controller, provided on a rail transportation train and configured to: perform traffic control according to the line resource allocation information when the train is traveling under the TACS system”), configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving an instruction indicating permission to enter a train autonomous circumambulation system (TACS) control level (see Fig 6, the step, “Reading information from the second transponder” which leads to the step, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system”; also see Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the second transponder B2, the car controller 150 switches from the CBTC system to the TACS system”);
in response to a train satisfying a condition for entering the TACS control level (i.e., after receiving affirming data from the second transponder in the process of Fig 6), controlling the train to enter the TACS control level (performing the steps in Fig 6 from, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system” through “Disconnecting the car controller with an equipment in the CBTC system”) and transmitting a TACS control notification to a ground device in a route section in which the train is located (the CBTC system being a ground device, see Paragraph 0003: “a conventional CBTC system (Communication Based-on Train Control, that is a communication based autonomous train control system), which is essentially a signaling system based on train-to-ground communication”, which relies on the wayside equipment shown in Fig 1, noted in the third step of Fig 6 and discussed in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096)), the ground device communicating with the train through the TACS control notification based on a TACS control level protocol (the steps in Fig 6 from, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system” through “Disconnecting the car controller with an equipment in the CBTC system” considered to constitute “TACS control level protocol”, as it as a protocol, i.e., set of steps, leading to full TACS control); and
operating the train based on the TACS control level (see the final step in Fig 6: “Controlling by the car controller, the train to exit the transition zone and to operate in the TACS system zone under the TACS system”).
Feng only fails to positively disclose that the controller comprises a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory, for executing the steps noted above, via the processor. However, Examiner take Official Notice, that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to configure vehicle controllers as computer systems comprising memory and processors for storing and running computer programs, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the controller of Feng thus.
In regard to claim 12, Feng modified supra discloses the controller of claim 11, wherein the determining whether the train satisfies the condition for entering the TACS control level comprises:
obtaining a current control level of the train (the first two steps of Fig 6, establishing that the train is under the CBTC and prepared to move to a transition zone; also see Paragraph 0095: “the train T1 operates under the CBTC system from the CBTC system zone to the transition zone);
in response to the current control level of the train being a communication based train control (CBTC) control level, determining that the train satisfies the condition for entering the TACS control level (by proceeding through the third, fourth, and fifth steps of Fig 6; also see Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the first transponder B1”); and
in response to the current control level of the train is a point control level or an interlock control level (considered to be the “transition zone” noted in the first step of Fig 6 and in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096) and the train is in communication with the ground device (considered to be the “wayside management system” noted in the third step of Fig 6 and in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096 and shown in Fig 1) in the route section in which the train is located, determining that the train satisfies the condition for entering the TACS control level (Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the first transponder B1, the car controller 150 is respectively connected with the first wayside management system and an adjacent vehicle T2 in the TACS system zone through the data communication system, so as to obtain line resource allocation information and the location information of the adjacent vehicle; according to the line resource allocation information and the location information of the adjacent vehicle, the car controller 150 calculates the movement authorization of the train T1, so as to perform traffic control on the train T1”).
In regard to claim 20,
Feng discloses a train (see Fig 1) comprising a vehicle on-board controller (VOBC) (car controller 150, see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0006: “a car controller, provided on a rail transportation train and configured to: perform traffic control according to the line resource allocation information when the train is traveling under the TACS system”), configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving an instruction indicating permission to enter a train autonomous circumambulation system (TACS) control level (see Fig 6, the step, “Reading information from the second transponder” which leads to the step, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system”; also see Paragraph 0095: “according to the information of the second transponder B2, the car controller 150 switches from the CBTC system to the TACS system”);
in response to the train satisfying a condition for entering the TACS control level (i.e., after receiving affirming data from the second transponder in the process of Fig 6), controlling the train to enter the TACS control level (performing the steps in Fig 6 from, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system” through “Disconnecting the car controller with an equipment in the CBTC system”) and transmitting a TACS control notification to a ground device in a route section in which the train is located (the CBTC system being a ground device, see Paragraph 0003: “a conventional CBTC system (Communication Based-on Train Control, that is a communication based autonomous train control system), which is essentially a signaling system based on train-to-ground communication”, which relies on the wayside equipment shown in Fig 1, noted in the third step of Fig 6 and discussed in Paragraphs 0095 and 0096), the ground device communicating with the train through the TACS control notification based on a TACS control level protocol (the steps in Fig 6 from, “Switching the car controller from the CBTC system to the TACS system” through “Disconnecting the car controller with an equipment in the CBTC system” considered to constitute “TACS control level protocol”, as it as a protocol, i.e., set of steps, leading to full TACS control); and
operating the train based on the TACS control level (see the final step in Fig 6: “Controlling by the car controller, the train to exit the transition zone and to operate in the TACS system zone under the TACS system”).
Feng only fails to positively disclose that the controller comprises a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory, for executing the steps noted above, via the processor. However, Examiner take Official Notice, that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to configure vehicle controllers as computer systems comprising memory and processors for storing and running computer programs, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the controller of Feng thus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and should the above noted limitations be overcome.
Examiner notes especially the limitations from claim 3: “wherein when the train is under the TACS control level, a driving mode of the train comprises an automatic train protection mode (CM), an automatic train driving mode (AM), and an autonomous train operation mode (SAM); when the train is under the CBTC control level, the driving mode comprises the CM and the AM, when the train is under the point control level, the driving mode comprises the CM and the AM; and when the train is under the interlock control level, the driving mode comprises an emergency unrestricted train operating mode (EUM) and a restricted manual mode (RM).”
Similarly, claims 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and should the above noted limitations be overcome.
Examiner notes especially the limitations from claim 13: “wherein when the train is under the TACS control level, a driving mode of the train comprises an automatic train protection mode (CM), an automatic train driving mode (AM), and an autonomous train operation mode (SAM); when the train is under the CBTC control level, the driving mode comprises the CM and the AM, when the train is under the point control level, the driving mode comprises the CM and the AM; and when the train is under the interlock control level, the driving mode comprises an emergency unrestricted train operating mode (EUM) and a restricted manual mode (RM).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747