DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to amendment received Nov. 24, 2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 21-22 of copending Application No. 17/223,884 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 21-22 of copending application teach all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been published.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
3. Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brand et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0270475 (referred to hereafter as Brand).
As to claims 1, 10 and 18, Brand teaches a method and system comprising:
receiving vehicle makeup information from multiple vehicles in a multi-vehicle system, the vehicle makeup information representing one or more characteristics of the vehicles, the vehicle makeup information received at a controlling vehicle of the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system that controls movement of the multi-vehicle system (see para. 12 and 42-43);
receiving, at the controlling vehicle, locations from location-determining devices respectively onboard the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system (see para. 12 and 42-43); and
controlling, with the controlling vehicle, operation of the multi-vehicle system using a combination of the vehicle makeup information received from the vehicles and the locations of the vehicles (see para. 44-45).
As to claims 4 and 13, Brand teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 10, wherein the vehicles include individually addressable brake control devices configured to be controlled by the controlling vehicle, wherein controlling the operation of the multi-vehicle system includes controlling one or more of the brake control devices based on the locations of the vehicles that are received (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
As to claims 5 and 14, Brand teaches the method and system of claims 4 and 13, further comprising: determining a state of a first brake in the multi-vehicle system, wherein at least a second brake in the multi-vehicle system is controlled based on the state of the first brake and based on the location of at least the second brake (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
As to claim 6, brand teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the first brake and the second brake are disposed onboard different vehicles of the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
As to claims 7 and 16, Brand teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 10, wherein the first brake is disposed onboard a first vehicle of the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system and the state that is determined indicates that the first brake has failed, and further comprising:
determining that the second brake is disposed onboard a second vehicle of the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system that is within a threshold distance from the first vehicle (see para. 123 and 130); and
changing engagement of the second brake based on the state of the first brake and the second vehicle being within the threshold distance from the first vehicle (see para. 123 and 130).
As to claims 8 and 17, Brand teaches the method and system of claims 1 and 10, further comprising: receiving a signal at the controlling vehicle from a first vehicle in the multi-vehicle system or a second vehicle that is not in the multi-vehicle system; and determining whether the location of the first vehicle or the second vehicle that sent the signal is located on a first route segment that the controlling vehicle also is located, wherein the operation of the multi-vehicle system is controlled based on the signal that is received responsive to determining that the signal is received from the first vehicle that is in the multi-vehicle system and that the signal is not received from the second vehicle that is not in the multi-vehicle system (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
As to claim 9, Brand teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a signal at the controlling vehicle from a first vehicle in the multi-vehicle system or a second vehicle that is not in the multi-vehicle system; and determining whether the location of the first vehicle or the second vehicle that sent the signal is located on a first route segment that the controlling vehicle also is located, wherein the operation of the multi-vehicle system is not controlled based on the signal that is received responsive to determining that the signal is received from the second vehicle that is not in the multi-vehicle system and that the signal is not received from the first vehicle that is in the multi-vehicle system (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
As to claim 15, Brand teaches the control system of claim 14, wherein the first brake is disposed onboard a first vehicle of the other vehicles in the multi-vehicle system and the state that is determined indicates that the first brake has failed (see para. 123 and 130).
As to claim 19, Brand teaches the method of claim 18, wherein controlling the brakes includes individually engaging a first brake of the brakes responsive to at least a second brake of the brakes failing, wherein the first brake is engaged based on the location of the non-propulsion vehicle that includes the first brake (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
As to claim 20, Brand teaches the method of claim 18, wherein controlling the brakes includes disregarding a signal received by a controller onboard the propulsion vehicle from a second non-propulsion vehicle that is not included in the multi-vehicle system based on a second location signal received from the second non-propulsion vehicle (see para. 114, 121 and 124).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
4. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand in view of Kumar, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0277939.
As to claims 3 and 12, Brand teaches a method and system comprising:
receiving vehicle makeup information from multiple vehicles in a multi-vehicle system, the vehicle makeup information representing one or more characteristics of the vehicles, the vehicle makeup information received at a controlling vehicle of the vehicles in the multi-vehicle system that controls movement of the multi-vehicle system (see para. 12 and 42-43).
Brand does not explicitly teach determining a shape of a path over which the multi-vehicle system extends using the locations of the vehicles that are received; comparing the shape of the path over which the multi-vehicle system extends with a shape of a route that is stored in a route database; and one or more of verifying or modifying the shape of the route that is stored in the route database based on comparing the shape of the path with the shape of the route.
However, Kumar teaches a method comprising: determining a shape of a path over which the multi-vehicle system extends using the locations of the vehicles that are received; comparing the shape of the path over which the multi-vehicle system extends with a shape of a route that is stored in a route database; and one or more of verifying or modifying the shape of the route that is stored in the route database based on comparing the shape of the path with the shape of the route (see para. 28-29 and 38).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application determine a shape of a path over which the multi-vehicle system extends using the locations of the vehicles that are received; comparing the shape of the path over which the multi-vehicle system extends with a shape of a route that is stored in a route database in Brand as taught by Kumar. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kumar that doing so would prevent accidents or derailments of trains.
5. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 2 and 11 as claimed.
6. Applicant argues in substance that Brand does not teach receiving vehicle makeup information from multiple vehicles in a multi-vehicle system, the vehicle makeup information representing one or more characteristics of the vehicles, the vehicle makeup information received at a controlling vehicle; and controlling, with the controlling vehicle, operation of the multi-vehicle system using a combination of the vehicle makeup information received from the vehicles and the locations of the vehicle.
In response, Brand states in para. 42: The operations data is data relating to how a particular vehicle is operating/running, including data relating to one or more of vehicle speed, vehicle braking status, tractive effort including slippage, motor condition/performance, vehicle engine and power system output and status, emissions, and the like…the operations data may represent information about one or more other operations or functions performed by a particular vehicle and/or data that is obtained, measured, or sensed by a sensor. ; para. 43: the operations data and associated location data are communicated to the first vehicle 208a over the cable bus 218 or other communication channel (e.g., wireless) linking the first vehicle 208a and the second vehicle 208b.; para. 44: command data is formed at the first vehicle 208a based on the received operations data and the associated location data. Command data includes data that is used to control one or more components or systems in the consist 206; para. 0045 At step 906, the command data is transmitted to one or more vehicles of the consist 206…The command data is received by the vehicles and directs the vehicles to change one or more operations of one or more of the vehicles.
Brand teaches operations data which defines how a particular vehicle is operating/running, including data relating to one or more of vehicle speed, vehicle braking status, tractive effort including slippage, motor condition/performance, vehicle engine and power system output and status, emissions, and the like…the operations data may represent information about one or more other operations or functions performed by a particular vehicle. The operation data is sent from consists to the first consist. The claim language does not define “makeup information” besides stating “the vehicle makeup information representing one or more characteristics of the vehicles”. Therefore, the operations data being transmitted from the multiple vehicles taught by Brand teaches “receiving vehicle makeup information from multiple vehicles in a multi-vehicle system, the vehicle makeup information representing one or more characteristics of the vehicles, the vehicle makeup information received at a controlling vehicle;” as claimed. In addition, Brand explicitly teaches that control commands are generated based on the operation data and the location of the vehicles. Therefore, Brand teaches “controlling, with the controlling vehicle, operation of the multi-vehicle system using a combination of the vehicle makeup information received from the vehicles and the locations of the vehicle” as claimed.
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights